Printer friendly version

September 8, 2006

What Celebrities Dare Not Consider

Jonah Goldberg points out the self-denying activism of Brad and Angelina:

Hey, look I can respect people who are pro-gay marriage. I don't think it's an intellectually and morally indefensible position even if I'm opposed to it. But, I don't get it. Do these guys really think their boycott will sway a lot of people? "Gosh, I was against dudes marrying each other before. But if it'll get those two crazy kids together, what they hey, it's worth it."

I'm very reluctant to treat the declarations of the prettier-than-thous with unwarranted intellectual seriousness, but it seems to me Jonah elides an important point by acceding to the subtle code language whereby "everyone else in the country who wants to be married" is presumed to mean only homosexuals. In meaning and in motivation, there are — at best — only tenuous distinctions between this sort of support for marriage privileges for homosexual couples that are alike to traditional marriage in everything but gender (and all of the crucial stuff that "but" entails) and admitting the complete dilution of marriage (and therefore its ruination).

Posted by Justin Katz at September 8, 2006 8:34 PM
Marriage & Family
Comments

It says a lot about a man's idea of Marriage, and the value he places on the Institution, when he claims "conscientious objector" status to avoid it

Posted by: Marty at September 9, 2006 4:18 PM

You mean like John Howard?

Posted by: smmtheory at September 9, 2006 5:11 PM

Hehehehe. Touche', smmt!

Posted by: Marty at September 9, 2006 9:04 PM

Do we really need to tell Jonah that Brad and Angelina really DO think their boycott will sway a lot of people? I think it's rather obvious they believe the world revolves around them. In this case, the celebrities dare not consider that the world does not indeed revolve around them. It might damage their poor self-esteem.

Posted by: smmtheory at September 10, 2006 11:28 AM

They're cultivating the Bono image. A kind of "unofficial representative to the United Nations" status, based on little more than good looks and questionable morals.

Posted by: Marty at September 10, 2006 8:36 PM

But I'm boycotting marriage for the opposite reason. Pitt wants it to mean less, I want it to mean more. I'm saying I'll marry if the state gets serious about insisting that I marry. Otherwise, why should I? I'm trying to show that it isn't just a personal preference to be married, that I wouldn't do it just for benefits and protections for me personally. I'll do it when people admit that I should have to get married. I'll do it when I get threatened with a fine ot jail for fornicating.

I like seeing the feminists get mad at me for - what? - not marrying? Of course they try to say that it's not that they dissapprove, but that I should be following my own standards, as if my conscience matters to them. But I explain that I'm not religious, I was raised by athiest/unitarians in the best liberalist public schools and I'm just doing what all my classmates do, until they decide to make the selfish decision to marry for whatever personal gain they perceive coming from it (wedding presents, a party, and whatever illusory vestigial meaning they think it still conveys.)

Also, it takes something back from the female power grab - they're mad at me because they are used to getting what they want when they want marriage, which is not really real marriage but their modern cosmetic appearance of it that they don't feel binds them to their husband. They're already perfectly able to laugh at a man that wants to marry them when they don't want to, but a man that doesn't marry when they want them to is maddening to them, and that pleases me. Of course, if a lovely woman were to come along who wasn't already wedded to her independence and didn't have this modern cosmetic idea of marriage, I would probably quit my boycott and marry, but I'd hope that the idea of the boycott would live on. I'm not trying to punish the woman I love by not marrying her, I'm trying to send a message that marriage is empty now, totally meaningless. I legally commit myself to a woman by having sex, though I can get out of the commitment if no pregnancy occurs, but that's out of my control. Marriage would not make me any more committed, it would just make me unfairly vulnerable if the marriage ends, which it is very likely to do with this modern conception.

Posted by: John Howard at September 10, 2006 10:03 PM

Hey, Bono seems to have very historically-proper biblical morals. The whole band, actually. Bono is married to his high school sweetheart, Alison (Stewart), whom he wed on August 21, 1982.

Posted by: John Howard at September 10, 2006 10:11 PM

What happened to my link? I need buttons :)

Oh, you need quotes in the tag? Don't tell me this site is XHTML? I can't stand that. grrr.

Posted by: John Howard at September 10, 2006 10:16 PM

Also. regarding the boycott again, remember that MLK wasn't against busses, he was against the state that the busses had come to be in, the way that people in power had messed up what should be perfectly good busses. They would have all benefitted from taking the buses, and I'm sure they wanted to take the busses, but they had to send a message that the people in power needed to undue what they had done to the busses if they were going to be riding on them again.

Posted by: John Howard at September 10, 2006 10:34 PM
But I'm boycotting marriage for the opposite reason. Pitt wants it to mean less, I want it to mean more.

Yeah..., right..., what's a cubit? Same means as Brad Pitt... same effect as Brad Pitt. If you want it to mean more, act like it really does mean more to you. Otherwise, 'til then, it just looks like your priority is not marriage, but fornication. You're worshipping at the altar of the God Orgasm. Some atheist you are John Howard.

Posted by: smmtheory at September 13, 2006 10:59 PM


I have to wonder if Pitt really has thought it through. Is he standing up for the "right" of aging renegade Mormons polygamists to marry their third 15 year old bride, just to pick one real world example? Is he all hot to defend the right of a Moslem man to pick up his fourth bride from Pakistan and bring her to Michigan? This enquiring mind wants to know, because "anyone" means "any one", not just "my gay friends".

One more thing: just how seriously am I supposed to take some actor who dumped his first wife in order to bed his current hottie, on the topic of marriage?

Posted by: notdhimmi at September 16, 2006 12:25 PM

If you want people to stop fornicating, arrest us. Give us a reason.

Posted by: John Howard at September 19, 2006 10:59 AM

Not sure how that fits into the discussion, John. Unless your hyperbole is meant merely to bully those with whom you disagree.

Posted by: Justin Katz at September 20, 2006 5:54 AM

What makes you think I want to stop you John? It's not my job. I have no desire to stop you. If you really want marriage to mean more to society and yourself, you'll stop yourself. Of course, if all you want is to blame society for your lascivious bahvior and claim no responsibility for your own actions... you'll not. Guess what I think is going to happen... you'll not.

Posted by: smmtheory at September 21, 2006 12:41 AM