Hello Ezkool readers, thank you for reading my first blog post here. I have been promising Ezra an article for a while and am happy to finally get this online. Please note, I write long and as such like to source my articles where best I can. Which is why you will see numbers after quotes and at the bottom of the article sources. There are also a number of sources linked directly within the piece.
————————————
Two comments caught my attention over the past few days. The first came from Tea Party favourite Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) who linked ‘gay marriage’ with bestiality:
“It’s kind of like marriage when you say it’s not a man and a woman any more. Then why not have three men and one woman, or four women and one man, or why not somebody has a love for an animal? There is no clear place to draw the line once you eliminate the traditional marriage.” [1]
And the other came from Oscar winning actor Jeremy Irons who wondered in gay marriage would see fathers marry their sons to avoid inheritance taxes:
“Could a father not marry his son?” Even when it was pointed out to him that incest is illegal Irons carried on unabated “It’s not incest between men”, because “incest is there to protect us from inbreeding, but men don’t breed.”
I’m not sure of the political affiliation of Mr Irons, but his comments are widely held beliefs by many outspoken right wing politicians/supporters, when trying to defend against the right of gay men and women to be included under the umbrella of marriage and equal human rights. What both Irons and Gohmert fail to, or don’t bother to see is that marriage is seen to be the bonding of a relationship between consenting adults – the impetuous being on “consenting“. So Gohmert’s slippery slope argument that same sex marriage will suddenly see people marrying their dogs is false – a dog can not consent. And in cases of incest, it is often the case that there is a level of abuse and therefore not consensual. That and the fact that is taboo.
As a marriage equality advocate – and a happily married straight woman, I have never seen any of my friends or fellow advocates, make the argument that if we have so-called “gay marriage” the next step is incest, bestiality, pedophilia, polygamy, etc acceptance. The reason being is, sensible, common sense individuals understand that what we advocate is the civil rights of consenting adults and never the abuse of animals, children or society. Yet, from DOMA’s first inception, throughout Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Prop 8, and the recent Supreme Court cases, without fail, so called traditional marriage advocates can not help themselves with going from consensual adults to marrying your dog or child etc.
In no state or country where “gay marriage” or “equal rights” have been made law of the land has bestiality and pedophilia become recognized and legal in law. This argument seems to be solely the twisted mindset of certain people with anti-gay agendas. Which leads me to ask the question, are these people actually safe to have in society with that kind of sickness running around their heads?
The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart berated the Republicans who always seem to go from gay sex to bestiality on his show this week:
“What is it with you people and the animal-fucking?… I don’t understand how your minds always go there. Like, then they’ll just remove the law of fucking animals. Is that the only thing that has been holding you back? ‘Oh, wow, look at that goat, if only I wouldn’t get in trouble.”
Since the new rise of the extreme right, there has been without fail, an almost weekly sex based obsession in legislation – take for example the “war on Women” which at it’s root again is about sex. Case in point, Sandra Fluke. Her testimony about the the Conscience Clause exceptions in healthcare, to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, prompted talk show host Rush Limbaugh to launch a multi-day campaign of hate, which included labelling Fluke as a “slut” for what he saw as contraceptive pills, equating sex:
“[Fluke] essentially says that she must be paid to have sex—what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex.” [3]
The fact is, Fluke never said such a thing. Her testimony centered around a friend who needed contraceptive pills to help with polycystic ovary syndrome, and the the lack of contraception coverage in Georgetown University. But it didn’t stop the onslaught and thus a myth was born, which carries on to this day – to many on the right, especially those with influence (politicians, talk show hosts, writers etc), the debate about contraceptive healthcare became about sex. As Rachel Maddow put it in an amusing rebuttal “I think that Rush Limbaugh thinks you take a birth control pill to avoid getting pregnant each time you have sex, so the more times you have sex the more birth control pills you need,” She explained further. “You just take one pill every day …. It’s a prescription deal … you don’t need more birth control to keep you not pregnant for more sex.” [4]
But as far as the right were concerned, contraceptives meant ‘slut’. Contraceptives meant you were sleeping with people left, right and center, and basically had no control over yourselves except to satisfy your slutty urges.
Continuing on the vein of the “War on Women” are the increasingly oppressive state laws being enacted by Republicans, to limit abortion access. I might like to remind readers, abortion access is and remains protected under the Constitution, something that Republican led states might want to remember in their selective love of the Constitution. Their laws are also motivated by bizarre ideas about sex.
The main argument from abortion deniers, or so called “pro-lifers” is women who get abortions are sluts, who can’t keep their legs crossed even those who are pregnant through rape or incest. Todd Atkins who was deposed in November 2012, is infamous for claiming “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.” [5] The emphasis should be dear reader, on “legitimate rape”, with the underlying current of suggestion being if it’s rape you wouldn’t get pregnant, therefore if you are pregnant, and seeking an abortion, you must be lying about being raped and a slut. Atkin’s comment fed into the idea of victim blaming, where people often think a rape victim – and more so in the cases of female victims of rape – that they somehow “asked for it”. For example, if the victim was drunk, she asked for it, the victim had more than one past sexual experiences, she is a slut therefore asked for it, or if the victim wore a skirt with a length shorter than the knee (okay a little sarcasm there), she asked for it.
Atkin was not alone in his thinking – Vice President hopeful Paul Ryan saw rape as another method of conception: “I’m very proud of my pro-life record, and I’ve always adopted the idea that, the position that the method of conception doesn’t change the definition of life.” [6] Pennsylvania Senate candidate Tom Smith, equated consensual sex with rape, when his daughter became pregnant out of wedlock.[7]
What each case showed, was an obsession to debase the argument down to a level which distorts the true issue. It also showed a very worrying and unhealthy way the right wing viewed sex.
Which brings me back to the arguments used against same sex marriage and homophobia in general.
In 2010, I wrote a piece for my opinion blog I had at the time, in which I looked at the “obsession with sex especially with DADT” [8] The article is still online so feel free to read the full argument. However to summarize for this piece, I was looking at how those who supported keeping DADT, would use slippery slope arguments, often based on a notion that gay men and women were uncontrollable sexual animals, just waiting for DADT to be repealed in order to jump on their poor, unsuspecting straight comrades. As a gay friend of mine said at the time “What is it with this idea that homophobic people have, that we are looking to jump their bones? Talk about being so full of themselves!“.
In the blog post I wrote then, I pointed out about DADT “The Right seem to me to be especially caught up on the sexual element of gay relationships instead of what this is really about – not having to lie about who you are, not having to make up a story about your partner, just so you don’t get kicked out of the job you have decided to do.”
The Family Research Council, designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center for their anti gay rhetoric, said at the time, gay inclusion in the military would lead to gays raping straights. FRC Senior Fellow for Policy Studies Peter Sprigg, was heard to say “We are today releasing an analysis of publicly available documents which show that homosexuals in the military are three times more likely to commit sexual assaults than heterosexuals are relative to their numbers,” Sprigg said. “We believe this problem would only increase if the current law against homosexuality…were to be repealed.” [9]
Forget the fact that gay men and women have always served in the military, just at that time without the ability to do so openly, the idea proposed by FRC was gay people can’t control themselves. It’s something the FRC use even today when it comes to frankly anything to do with gay men and women. Here’s just a smattering of quotes:
“This is another attempt by the homosexual lobby to indoctrinate children as young as kindergarten in the homosexual lifestyle. Young people who are sexually confused need the facts about homosexuality. They need to know that research shows they aren’t `born gay,”
“Gaining access to children has been a long-term goal of the homosexual movement.”
“Acceptance Of Homosexuality Will Result In More Unwanted Pregnancies. “
All the above statements – and more – can be found at Media Matters Political Correction here: http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/200910020001 and Right Wing Watch: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/family-research-council
Slippery slope arguments are nothing new. It is disturbing how the same or rather similar agreements were used to protest against interracial marriages and relationships. The idea that marriage would be somehow debased, watered down or loose it meaning were used up until the case of Loving went to the Supreme Court. These arguments are still used today, this time for gay marriage.
There are many on the right who believe that gay people are defined by the sex they have, unlike straight people who’s partnerships are defined by the relationships they have and sex – what they do in the bedroom – is by the by. Anti-gay advocates believe gay men and women are incapable of day to day relationships. I’m not sure in this instance if the rhetoric is pushed by homophobic ideology or jealousy of the constant sex they believe gay men and women are always having. And this is without even beginning to look at the points they make that gay people are not created by God, but woe betide anyone who suggests heterosexuals choose their “lifestyle”. Or that if gay men and women are permitted to “marry” straight men and women will be tripping over themselves to take part in this “fad” just because they can. And lets remember to play a violin for all those straight marriages which will crumble under the weight of “gay marriage” and not be able to survive the supposed “redefinition” – and of course all that gay sex – you know the anal only gay men and women partake in (Anal Sex More Popular Than Possibly Expected Among Heterosexual Couples).
The simple fact is, relationships are not defined by sex, and neither will gay rights mean an onslaught of laws legalizing bestiality, pedophilia etc. Women use contraception for more means than just preventing pregnancy and just because a woman gets an abortion does not make her a slut. Neither is a woman asking for it in any way shape or form. Gay people are not chomping at the bit to hump their straight friends/colleagues or comrades in war, and neither is sex all that defines their relationship. It is not the left and equal rights advocates who obsess about the sex lives of people, nor is it equal rights advocates who suggest that once we get “gay rights” will we be advocating the rights of NAMBLA – yes I’m looking at you Dr Ben Carson.
Sources:
[1] http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/louie-gohmert-gay-marriage-comments-89582.html#ixzz2PVjuLutK
[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/04/04/jeremy-irons-would-gay-marriage-fathers-marrying-sons-avoid-inheritance-tax-video_n_3012356.html?utm_hp_ref=uk
[3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/29/rush-limbaugh-sandra-fluke-slut_n_1311640.html
[4] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/03/rachel-maddow-rush-limbaugh-birth-control-sandra-fluke_n_1318354.html
[5] http://fox2now.com/2012/08/19/the-jaco-report-august-19-2012/
[6] http://gawker.com/5937880/paul-ryan-refers-to-rape-as-a-method-of-conception
[7] http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/pennsylvania-tom-smith-senate-pregnancy-rape-unwed-daughter.php?ref=fpa
[8] http://viewsacrossthepond.wordpress.com/2010/09/28/the-rights-obssession-with-sex-especially-with-dadt/
[9] http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/family-research-council-end-of-dadt-means-more-gay-rape-in-the-military.php
