Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Miss Fuck You | Dino Rossi: Let the Sunshine I... »

Thursday, July 10, 2008

The Sacred Sanctity of the Super Sacred Institution of Sanctified Heterosexual Marriage

posted by on July 10 at 8:38 AM

It would be easier to take conservatives seeking to “protect” marriage seriously if they proposed some sort of penalty for heterosexuals that make a hash of marriage over and over and over again. Perhaps a four-strikes-and-you’re-out law?

RSS icon Comments


How come no one ever comments on how Christie cheated on poor, drunken Billy Joel?

Posted by P to the J | July 10, 2008 8:55 AM

It might be easier to take you seriously Dan if you didn't comb the web for the worst examples of people to make your so called point. Honestly, I could find plenty of examples of why black people shouldn't be allowed to roam free in the US if I used your techniques.

Posted by Blunderplank | July 10, 2008 9:02 AM

Brinkley, 54, was married to Cook for a decade before his affair with a teenager he met in a Southampton toy store catapulted their troubles into the public spotlight in 2006.

The trial, which was in its sixth day, revealed a litany of salacious allegations about Cook's affair with 18-year-old Diana Bianchi, as well as interactive Internet sex liaisons that cost him thousands of dollars a month. Cook, 49, testified he gave Bianchi a $300,000 payoff after having trysts with her in his office and Brinkley's Hamptons homes for several months in 2005.

See that right there? That's messed up.

Posted by Greg | July 10, 2008 9:07 AM

Blunderplank, you apparently live in a context-free world. A better analogy would be if you were arguing that WHITE people roamed free, in the faces of whites saying the same about blacks. Because that is what Dan is doing; he's taking THEIR technique, one that opponents of gay marriage and adoption use, and inverting it to show just how invertible and thus stupid it is. See how that works? He's not really saying heteros shouldn't be allowed to get married here. He's using irony to POINT OUT HYPOCRISY.

Posted by Fnarf | July 10, 2008 9:08 AM

Bless you, Fnarf.

Posted by Dan Savage | July 10, 2008 9:10 AM

Brinkley and her attorneys contended that Cook's admitted adultery and pornographic proclivities made him an unsuitable candidate for child custody.

Posted by ap | July 10, 2008 9:12 AM

I would think his proclivity for banging chicks not much older than his daughter would make him unsuitable, myself. And, seriously, you know he's got a problem, because Diana Bianchi just isn't that hott. I'll bet she can do the Jersey Pout, though.

Posted by Fnarf | July 10, 2008 9:23 AM

I say enact a matrimonial felony law with a THREE-strikes-you're-out and mandatory sterilzation. You know, just for consistency's sake.

Posted by DaiBando | July 10, 2008 9:23 AM

In general, opponents of gay marriage and adoption base their opposition on biblical grounds rather than any practical concerns. If god said it that's it. They're irrational idiots but it's not quite hypocrisy. But, yeah, there is a wee bit o' irony and seeming hypocrisy in the title of legislation like "Defense of Marriage Act".

Posted by umvue | July 10, 2008 9:29 AM

ap @6, no big deal, actually. it's their job to make specious claims with the hope that the judge is biased and will agree with them. if the judge is not so biased, then this argument will be dismissed as irrelevant, which it of course is.

i personally loved the bit about the psychiatrist recommending that brinkley examine her taste in men.

Posted by ellarosa | July 10, 2008 9:30 AM

@2 The question that comes to my mind is: why did you choose this particular example of what you could do if you used the technique you ascribe to Dan?

"Honestly, I could find plenty of examples of why black people shouldn't be allowed to roam free in the US if I used your techniques."

The form you used is a common one, often used by insecure people along the lines of "I could have thought of that" to express envy that someone else is successful. Except that you brought in a question race where it was not present. I wonder why you chose race? Perhaps you are envious of what you perceive as Dans' worst of techniques and fantasize about making this particular argument about "plenty of" black people around you? Tell me, do you feel threatened by black people roaming free?

Posted by LMSW | July 10, 2008 9:35 AM

You make no sense Fnarf (and by proxy, Dan). How is it hypocrisy? When was the last time Christy Brinkley took a stand against gay marriage? Again, it's just Dan picking out the worst of well known insecure people to make some kind of point when he should be able to stand on his merits.

Posted by Blunderplank | July 10, 2008 9:40 AM

In defense of Christie, Dan, she's been living in an uptown world for as long as anyone with hot blood can!

Posted by MvB | July 10, 2008 9:41 AM

Totally not on the sanctity of marriage (well sort of, I guess my ex wasn't very sanctious of ours), but, having gone through a very messy divorce myself I just don't know how celebrities handle the grief of having it all dangled out there in public. Having a close circle of family and friends know the details was bad enough, I can't imagine what it is like with full media coverage.

Posted by PopTart | July 10, 2008 9:43 AM
Perhaps a four-strikes-and-you’re-out law?
Just as they name so many laws after victims of circumstance, might I suggest they introduce this bill as the Elizabeth Tailor Law?

Posted by UNPAID BLOGGER | July 10, 2008 9:46 AM

12, he's not talking about brinkely's hypocrisy. he's talking about the "defense of marriage" people who talk about the "sanctity" of hetero marriage, but they don't even try to do anything about the degraded state of hetero marriage, they only want to keep homos out. that's their whole concept of "sanctity" apparently.

Posted by ellarosa | July 10, 2008 9:51 AM

I like how Peter Cook meets a teenager in a toy store and bangs her...


Posted by Mike in MO | July 10, 2008 9:57 AM

LMSW your argument against Blunderpunk makes no sense.

Posted by Mike | July 10, 2008 10:10 AM

@7: I dunno, she does those innocent doe eyes so well...

Posted by Greg | July 10, 2008 10:17 AM

Echo fnarf: if you live in the Hamptons and have "18 properties," can't you do better than Diana Bianchi? I guess not, if you spend thousands of dollars a month on "interactive Internet sex liaisons."

What. A. Loser.

Posted by Big Sven | July 10, 2008 10:20 AM

Fnarf, I see where you are coming from but lots and lots of men would like to bang women as young as possible (18) even as their children grow and mature over that point. It's not like there is any evidence his daughter is in danger.

Posted by Non | July 10, 2008 11:02 AM

Mike @18: aside from one mis-worded sentence ( it should have read more along the lines of "Except that you brought in a race based proposal, where race was not an issue"), the idea was to apply psychoanalytic interpretation to Blunderpunks' post. Utilizing these methods, it is not accidental (there are no accidents) that Blunderpunk came up with an odd race based hypothesis, that he could prove using Dans' techniques.

Of course, the rational response might be, Blunderpunk was merely choosing another extremist trope that could be proven by Dan's rhetorical methods. However, this is a weak defense and minimizes the choice, the usage and the intensity of Blunderpunks' imagery.

My point was that such out-of-context use of intense imagery points to some conflict in Blunderpunks' mind.

Posted by LMSW | July 10, 2008 11:47 AM

LMSW indeed. Race is pretty valid in this context. A common battle cry for homosexuals is that's it's not unlike the fight for civil rights among non-whites in America which is pretty insulting. The simple fact is, Dan can't legitimize his life rationally so he chooses to bring up stories of the lowest of the low to somehow make himself feel more valid. And THAT is a weak argument if it can even be called one. If he can't somehow convince people that what he does is right without sensationalizing such dumb stories of dumb people, then perhaps he's just wrong.

But hell, it sells ad space. Keep it up!

Posted by Blunderplank | July 10, 2008 1:01 PM

How about a constituional amendment that makes divorce illegal when you will ruin your children's life. Brinkley is a cold bitch who clearly didn't give a shit who she hurt.

Posted by Vince | July 10, 2008 1:34 PM

@23 you just keep digging don't you.

If you were going to use the race/civil rights connection, the appropriate comparison would have been miscegenation laws. Instead, your rhetorical hypothesis was to prove that "black people shouldn't be allowed to roam free in the US." Now if you were a person of color this would be really interesting.

As for your further statements...

You find the comparison between gay rights and the civil rights to be insulting. Is that insulting to you? or to whom? While it is true that gay people were not slaves, it is clear that gay people suffer from discrimination and violence directed against them because they are not straight.

Next you point out that Dan can't legitimize his life rationally. One possible implication is that his life needs to be legitimized in the face of some character or behavior flaw. Hmmm might that flaw be, in your eyes, being gay? So in your mind, from this low point, the flawed Dan can only make himself feel valid by comparing himself to the lowest of the low. Well that puts him pretty far down there, in your eyes, doesn't it? Another possibility is that he feels quite secure in his own identity and behavior, and is pointing out that intolerant groups such as the right wing have a double standard regarding institution of marriage.

Finally you set the bar at essentially convincing you, in a way that appeals to your sense of rationality that his behavior is right, and thus failing that "perhaps he is wrong."

Very funny.

Posted by LMSW | July 10, 2008 5:51 PM

It's frustrating that the conservatives don't point their vitriol in a remotely non-hypocritical manner. Yet, really everyone should have the opportunity to ruin the sanctity of marriage, don't you think? I hope that one day gays and straights alike can possess the freedom to not only bake casseroles and spawn, but also prove that marriage neither fits one mold, nor insures that a couple be blessedly permanent.

Posted by Robin B | July 11, 2008 6:25 AM

My mom is a Baha'i and they have a three-strike rule: You can only get married up to three times. She's finished her third, so no more for her, even though she's still a hot 60-year-old. No sex outside of marriage either. I'm glad I don't have those constraints, though I hope and pray that if I ever get married again (divorced on Tuesday after 18 years) it's the last time. Not that I'm really planning on there being a second time anyway.

Posted by pastanaut | July 12, 2008 4:59 AM

Ok. . . So as a black female who believes in gay rights, but is actually a heterosexual ex-christian (I have been buddhist for the past ten years, but still have many christian based beliefs because I was raised that way in the heart of Georgia) attending a liberal arts college in Massachusetts I feel that perhaps I can add some variety to responses listening to what most of you have to say.

First off: Dan, I understand where you are coming from and I don't think that everyone should be so hard on him for his example. It is obvious that marriage is not as sacred as people (and let's be honest Chirstians) claim they are trying to keep it. However, it may be better to try and take examples of how the bible claims we are all God's children yet preaches against those who would lay with another of the same sex. Or how the bible says that we should love our neighbor, but some people feel they have the right to beat up homosexuals at will. OR maybe you could be more positive and show examples of homosexual couples that have been together for a long time and how they are happy together and successful just as much as another couple that just happens to be a man and woman. OR you could give an example of children who have gay parents who have become upstanding, productive members of society. However, to post a little blurb about Christy and Peter is harsh because they are not being hypocritical, as far as I know neither of them have taken a stand against gay marriage.

Second of all: As for the comment blunderplank made, Sorry, buddy but it still has no place being discussed here! I know that you are making the argument that the struggle for gay rights is similar and often compared to the struggle set forth for different ethnic groups(primarily blacks). It still is quite random here and I really would like to see you try to justify "why black people shouldn't be allowed to roam free in the US". . . Clearly, you are a little messed up in the head. First off, sweetie black people aren't cattle, ok? We don't roam! We walk on two feet just like everybody else, ok? I don't know how many of us you have seen, but we wear clothes, talk on the phone and eat food just like every other human walking the Earth. Perhaps, you should word your comments differently or maybe even post more appropriate comments.

Lastly:@24 Christie is not a cold bitch. Have you tried looking up the exact allegations that Christy made? No and I will tell you now that you won't be able to find them because she refused to let them be published as she thought that they could emotionally scar the children. She even went as far to have the kids sent to camp during the time of the trial so they would not have to be near her nor Peter as their nasty divorce was occuring. And as a child whose parents have been divorced, I personally was happier when they did divorce because when two people have loved eachother and one hurts the other it can get very messy and be more of an emotional stress than when they finally are divorced and don't worry these kids will be fine. She can affrod the best therapists that American money can buy and I am sure no one is going to pick on them because their parents are divorced. They will see their father and be fine.

And as for my opinion marriage period: Gay marriage shoudl be legal for numerous reasons, but primarily because the governemnt should not have the right to tell us how to behave as long as our behavior is not harmful or invading someone else's rights (aka murder, rape, hate crimes: yeah they have the right to tell us not to behave this way). So first they said homosexuals cannot marry. . . Now in Atlanta they are making it illegal to wear baggy pants or hip huggers. . . What's next are they going to say people can't threesomes or eat applesauce on Mondays!? I know this is barely related and nowhere near as much of an invasion of freedom as not allowing gays to marry, but plain and simple the government needs to realize that they do not have the right to basically tell someone that they cannot love another based on their sex. It is wrong. It is unconstitutional! Americans supposedly have certain inalienable rights. . . Is not the pursuit of happinees one of them and thus is not love? The civil rights movement was not a movement to get the same rights for etnic groups as whites, but instead was a movent to have ethnics seen as humans and thus granting us the same inalienable rights because at the timw only white males were seen as people and no one else (well white men who owned a significent amount of land). So, are gays not people? Certainly, they are and the governments recognizes them as so (since they can vote, speak their minds, own land and so on) so how does the government have the ability to tell these people they cannot marry, they cannot pursue love, they cannot be happy!? How can the government claim to represent the people and not allow gays to marry? It is unjust and unconstitutional. . .

Thanks for reading.

Posted by wowzer | July 12, 2008 10:11 PM

Amen, Wowzer!!

Posted by Barbara | July 15, 2008 1:07 PM

Comments Closed

Comments are closed on this post.