The Emperor Has No Clothes. Turns Out He’s a Girl.

Sharing Options

Next time you are in SeaTac airport, C concourse, and you are in need of a jar, you can go out to the far end and take a look at this.

2013-10-28 16.10.02

The jeweler involved in this outrage is clearly brim full of hate. Now that we have “achieved” marriage “equality,” just slam the door shut and pretend that we are done. But there is so much more left to do before we can rest. I can think of two other combos — viciously excluded here — right off the top of my head.

What about Him and Harem? Wouldn’t a supposed jeweler be interested in selling more rings, not fewer rings? Clearly, his manifest desire to limit his sales to two per wedding is not in his best interest, and must therefore be motivated by hatred. And he celebrates his hatred in an ad talking about weddings, which, when I was a young boy, used to be about love.

And related to the number two, the thinly disguised hatred and contempt for bisexuals just oozed out of that ad. Look at it again. The hegemony of twoness practically shouts at you. His and Hers. His and His. Hers and Hers. All done. This is why the revolution is never done, people. “We two, we happy two . . .”

Twoism is a virulent form of hatred, and is worse than all the -isms we have successfully combated up to this point. But as bad as it is, they were actually celebrating it in an ad in an airport. Seattle is supposed to be an enlightened city. Starbucks started there.

Think of the pain that an ad like this must cause the bisexuals walking through this concourse . . . although with the levels of hate on display here, I probably should have walked down to the entry of that concourse to see if there was a sign banning bisexuals from even walking up that way. But even they probably wouldn’t be so brazen, so think of the pain involved.

A bisexual man, let’s call him John, is walking along miserably. He has been connected to Bill and to Susan for three years now, and their alternative arrangement seems to have been accepted by the neighbors and most of their relatives. Their bed & breakfast has been featured in Home & Garden. On that level, things were fine. Things were finally going his way. Now he always could have married Susan, but he had refused because he wouldn’t dream of leaving Bill behind. And now he could marry Bill — but only if he joined the state of Washington in their hatred and seething contempt for Susan. He was deep in these thoughts of nobility, compassion, tenderness, outrage, hurt, love, more love, all covered over with self-congratulation and self-pity, when he looked up and saw The Sign. Two rings. Two. Just two. Two is the loneliest number. He imagined himself going down to the King County Courthouse, and imagined the sign at the counter where only some people could get their wedding licenses. “Twofers only. No Threebies.” And John sank slowly to his knees, right there in the middle of C Concourse, dying of a broken heart. As he went over, his cup of frozen yogurt fell with him — there is a shop right across — and three M&Ms, one red, two greens, rolled slowly, and very sadly, across the floor. At least they could be together.

Okay, so maybe it wouldn’t happen exactly that way. But the problem is exactly that problem. Wedding licenses in Washington now have a space for Person A and one for Person B. The state of Washington is therefore given over to hate — on their demented principles, it is hatred for Person C, and on biblical principles, it is hatred for God and His Word. The case for marriage “equality,” blinded by their hate, can’t count very high.

The bigotry of excluding bisexuals by law from the benefits of marriage is an argument that needs to be answered, and thus far in my experience, the best retort on it has been something along the lines of “you are totally wrong on this because shut up.”

The emperor is by this point totally nekkid. Discuss the ramifications among yourselves.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
68 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ben Bowman
7 years ago

Your John and Bill are confused. Pun intended. 

Jane Dunsworth
Jane Dunsworth
7 years ago

That’s SUCH an unfair characterization of the explanation of why bisexuals are excluded from marriage. The actual argument is much more nuanced: “number matters in a way that sex does not because shut up.”

Eric Stampher
Eric Stampher
7 years ago

They compound lies with the hate.  False advertising.  They won’t be-ring ALL the Two’s.  Greg & his daughter, even though she’s an adult.  Lisa and her daughter.  Insidious hate and lies.

Eric the Red
Eric the Red
7 years ago

There is nothing on that sign that even remotely suggests the jeweler wouldn’t sell his and harem rings, or bisexual threesome rings, or even Greg and his daughter rings.  Maybe he would, maybe he won’t, since he’s in business to make money I suspect he probably would, but you can’t tell from the sign.  So even if I agreed with your premise, your conclusion doesn’t follow from it.   That aside, have you noticed that the people in our world who actually practice polygamy — fundamentalist Mormons and fundamentalist Muslims — also tend to be people who are fairly hostile… Read more »

Ben Bowman
7 years ago

Eric. Gender equality is not the same as marriage equality. Marriage by it’s biblical definition and standard is exclusive. At some point there must be a standard. Christians (should) use the Bible. If marriage is just a title that gives certain privileges then it could be argued that those who have not graduated with their doctorate should be allowed to be doctors.
 

Gervase Markham
7 years ago

I think if you continue to use “bisexual” rather than “polygamist”, you are going to continue confusing people. This came up in Indiana as well. In common parlance, at least, a bisexual is someone who is happy to have sexual relations with someone of either sex, but that by no means implies that they want to be in multiple relationships at the same time. It is perfectly possible to be bisexual and believe in monogamy. (Serial monogamy, presumably, but monogamy none the less.) Your point would be less clouded if you called people who want to be married to multiple… Read more »

Rob Steele
7 years ago

The jeweler in this little morality tale stands not for himself but for the forces of society trying to suppress the knowledge of God.  The actual literal jeweler is probably just an average company trying to look cool and maximize profit.  The point is that God haters have no counter argument to the slippery slope.  Our host could have said all this in as few words but his way is funny and robs the opposition of one of their favorite weapons, that of calling us haters.

Tim M
Tim M
7 years ago

I think the sign would also be excluding man/beast marriages and adult/child marriages… Such hate

Seth B.
Seth B.
7 years ago

Hi, Mr. Wilson! What were you doing in my fair little city?

Arwen B
Arwen B
7 years ago

Actually, Eric, gay marriage is about the complete exclusion of the members of one sex from a given union, based solely on their sex.

Heterosexual (now there’s a redundant term, if ever I’ve heard one) marriage is far more inclusive, since it involves one male and one female.

bethyada
7 years ago

Eric, are you arguing that desiring several women is MORE misogynistic than excluding them completely?

Eric the Red
Eric the Red
7 years ago

 
Actually, Arwen, all marriages, gay or straight, are about making a choice as to whom one wishes to spend (one hopes) the rest of one’s life with, and gay marriage is about the added proposition that such a choice should not be limited by gender. 
 

Eric the Red
Eric the Red
7 years ago

Bethyada, I’m arguing that in practice, polygamous relationships tend to be misogynistic.  Spend five minutes actually thinking through what it would be like to be one of the wives.  Cultures that find it acceptable – fundamentalist Mormons and Muslims – treat their women horribly.  In such cultures, women are effectively indentured servants.  Why, would you suppose, are such woman-hating cultures the only places where polygamy is still practiced?
 

katecho
katecho
7 years ago

Eric the Red wrote: “As it’s actually been practiced, polygamy is arguably the most misogynistic institution ever devised by sexist men.” Arguably?  If so, where is the argument?  Eric gets all foamy and bigoted with both feet firmly planted in mid-air.  As an adherent of naturalism and evolutionism, Eric seems to have ignored the examples in nature where polygamy is, well, natural.  Does Eric think a buck has a harem to oppress the does?  Were the lionesses coerced?  In Eric’s world, aren’t these behaviors all simply the arbitrary and unintended outworking of biochemical potentiality?  What does misogyny have to do… Read more »

jay niemeyer
jay niemeyer
7 years ago

Eric,      Concerning polygamy you wrote, ”  In theory I suppose it doesn’t have to be, (misogynistic) but in practice that’s sure how it’s worked out.”  Therefore we should not allow it, correct? By that reasoning should we also not take into account the health risks and consequences of sodomy? Is there no consideration for the general temptation to promiscuity among males – and gay males in particular? How do we know that the concern for “gender equality” (which, for all intents and purposes, seems to infer a sort of gender equivalency – for if there is some difference, does… Read more »

jay niemeyer
jay niemeyer
7 years ago

Eric,      Concerning polygamy you wrote, ”  In theory I suppose it doesn’t have to be, (misogynistic) but in practice that’s sure how it’s worked out.”  Therefore we should not allow it, correct? By that reasoning, concerning gay marriage, should we also not take into account the health risks and consequences of sodomy? Is there no consideration for the general temptation to promiscuity among males – and gay males in particular? How do we know that the concern for “gender equality” (which, for all intents and purposes, seems to infer a sort of gender equivalency – for if there is… Read more »

Seth B.
Seth B.
7 years ago

Eric: What about “gay marriage is about the added proposition that such a choice should not be limited by gender.   “. But what if a sister and a brother love each other SOO much? Isn’t it hateful to exclude them from marriage? What if they promise to get their tubes tied so they don’t have freaky children?

Wesley
Wesley
7 years ago

It would be Chestertonian irony to point out that the world sees a club composed entirely of men as sexist, but a marriage composed entirely of men as progress.
 

Rob Noland
7 years ago

Pastor Wilson, Merely having an interest in the strength of your argument, I have to express my respectful disagreement with the way you are using the word “bisexual.”I agree with Gervase. It seems to me you are equivocating. Someone who identifies as bisexual is not necessarily saying that they have to have both a man and a woman at the same time. They are saying that they are neither homosexual nor heterosexual, but bisexual. That is, they claim to be attracted to both sexes and might at one time enter into a relationship with a man and at another time… Read more »

Eric the Red
Eric the Red
7 years ago

Katecho, anyone who seriously thinks lions and deer are analogous to human relationships isn’t worth responding to; there are a great many things lions and deer do that humans don’t and vice versa.  Jay, if gay males are promiscuous and have resulting health issues, why would you deny them marriage which is likely to reduce promiscuity and STDs?  (And in any event, that would not be a reason to deny marriage to lesbians).  Seth, Abraham and Sarah were brother and sister and that seemed to work out OK.  Wesley, any club with only two members is necessarily going to exclude… Read more »

David R
David R
7 years ago

“the issue is that marriage involves the right to choose who you want to be the second member of your club. ”

But only the second member. If you want the right to choose the third member, then you are outta luck.

Seth B.
Seth B.
7 years ago

Eric: Actually they were half brother and sister. But that Mosaic law had not been laid down at that time.

Jane Dunsworth
Jane Dunsworth
7 years ago

And plural marriage is about the proposition that the choice of marriage partner should not be limited by the existence of another partner, and incestuous marriage is about the proposition that the choice of marriage partner should not be limited by lack of biological relationship. Eric hasn’t given any reason why these limitations are any more compelling than the limitation that requires a marriage partner to be one person of the opposite sex, except for ideas that could easily be ruled as outmoded, prejudicial, and in violation of people’s rights as the idea that marriage inherently involves two sexes. So… Read more »

katecho
katecho
7 years ago

Eric wrote: “anyone who seriously thinks lions and deer are analogous to human relationships isn’t worth responding to” Eric should review his copy of The Selfish Gene.  This is precisely what Richard Dawkins seriously thinks and argues from his evolutionary presuppositions.  Is Dawkins not worthy of a response?  Dawkins grants no metaphysical status for human “relationships”, but all animal behaviors are mapped directly to biochemical forces that are the same for all species.  What authority or argument does Eric possess to counter Dawkins?  Eric again shows himself incapable of interacting with his own naturalism, he must simply dismiss uncomfortable conclusions… Read more »

katecho
katecho
7 years ago

Rob Noland wrote: “If this is the case, then wouldn’t it be theoretically possible (just given the term) that a man who identifies himself as a bisexual could be in a monogamous relationship with either sex?” Of course the term can include such cases, but this appears to be a red herring.  It’s a semantic objection that doesn’t affect Wilson’s argument even if granted.  Likewise, the term homosexual could refer to someone who is not in a relationship at all, and sometimes that distinction is important, but we still use the term homosexual correctly when presenting arguments about those who… Read more »

JohnM
JohnM
7 years ago

 
Eric – “Gay marriage, on the other hand, is about gender equality.” It is? You mean like seriously, that’s what it’s all about after all?  But I suppose I’d better stop a moment and ask – What do you mean by gender?

jay niemeyer
jay niemeyer
7 years ago

”  Jay, if gay males are promiscuous and have resulting health issues, why would you deny them marriage which is likely to reduce promiscuity and STDs?    ” I define marriage, and right and wrong for that matter, primarily according the ultimate standard. Namely the revelation of God in Scripture. But there are specific answers to your query as well. 1. If overall promiscuity is reduced, the likelihood of adultery would be greatly increased. 2. STD’s might be reduced, but the act of sodomy itself – especially if regularly practiced – results in other significant (and disgusting) health problems. —————————————————————————————————————… Read more »

Eric the Red
Eric the Red
7 years ago

Katecho, you egregiously misrepresent Dawkins, who goes on to say that one of the significant differences between humans and other animals is that humans have the ability to apply rational thought to their actions rather than being driven purely by primal instinct.  Yes, it is true that our biochemistry is the template, but since humans have the ability to think, we can alter the template if we choose to do so in a way that other animals can’t.  So, if you’re going to quote Dawkins, please try to honestly and fairly represent his position.

Eric the Red
Eric the Red
7 years ago

At any rate, Katecho (and Jay Niemeyer), here is what your “by whose standard” argument boils down to:  “I, Katecho, am too stupid to figure out for myself that pain is to be avoided; I need God to tell me that.  I also can’t figure out for myself that certain behaviors are more likely to cause pain, both individually and societally, unless God tells me that, so I have no way of knowing that those behaviors are to be avoided unless it’s written in the Bible.  Finally, I’m completely clueless about the fact that humans live in community rather than… Read more »

Eric the Red
Eric the Red
7 years ago

Jane, incestuous marriages are banned in an effort to keep deformed children from being born, and polygamous marriages are banned in large part because we’ve seen how damaging they are to women in the cultures that practice them, neither argument of which is merely my subjective opinion.  All of that said, I have not taken a position on whether such marriages should be legal, partly because I’ve not yet come to a firm position.  I have enough of a libertarian streak to think that people should be able to arrange their private affairs without state intervention.  On the other hand,… Read more »

Eric the Red
Eric the Red
7 years ago

JohnM, I didn’t say that gay marriage was only about gender equality.  And it doesn’t matter how I personally define gender; gay marriage means that two people who want to get married can do so regardless of how they are classified.

Jane Dunsworth
Jane Dunsworth
7 years ago

Eric, incestuous marriages between old people and people of the same sex carry no such risk as you suggest. And the laws about marriage have never been about what’s understood to be potentially, but not necessarily, harmful to one of the partners — people with histories of partner abuse, infectious diseases, people currently incarcerated, or any other problem that makes marriage not a good idea are never banned from marriage — the law doesnn’t even investigate to see whether those conditions are the case at the time of issuing a marriage license. (It used to, with a limited and inconsistent… Read more »

Dan
Dan
7 years ago

As Christians, I think it’s safer to just defend the biblical precept of marriage between one man and one woman, and avoid the temptation to defend it with clever arguments.  There’s really no need to.  The history of human civilization is on our side.  Thus, the onus is not on us to be timid about defending the historical and traditional view of marriage.  It’s no different than standing up for the premise not to steal, or not to litter, or not to be disrespectful to one’s elders.  I could go on, but you get the point.  These things don’t need… Read more »

JohnM
JohnM
7 years ago

Eric, It might matter how you define gender.  If you agree with me and common sense by gender you mean male and female, and by that definition I don’t believe for moment that same sex marriage is about gender equality at all. I doubt even lesbians want to be married to one another for the reason that they suppose that makes them equal with men, let alone do men want to marry men for the sake of gender egalitarianism.  My incredulity was real but I was also kind of tossing you a  slow soft ball, but I guess you declined to swing.   Anyway, is support for… Read more »

jay niemeyer
jay niemeyer
7 years ago

Eric, you’ve boiled down the wrong recipe. Of course we all assume that you don’t like experiencing that which is unpleasant to you. We’re just rational enough to see that an ethical foundation of mere pain avoidance – planted firmly in self-interest derived from meaningless chains of purposeless causation – might prove problematic.

henrybish
henrybish
7 years ago

Nice try Eric, but it is still painfully obvious that you still have no clothes on.
You have put your suppression of honesty in assessing your own worldview on display for all to see.
(I refer to your latest reply to katecho).

Eric the Red
Eric the Red
7 years ago

Jane, as with most laws about most things, a flat ban on incestuous marriage is both under-inclusive and over-inclusive of the problem it’s trying to solve.  You’re right; there’s no risk of children with birth defects if two brothers marry, or if two siblings who are past childbearing age marry (though drafting a law with those couples in mind would then create a challenge based on sex discrimination and age discrimination).  There is also probably no reason to require drivers to stop at red lights if there doesn’t happen to be any cross traffic at that moment.  But the law… Read more »

Eric the Red
Eric the Red
7 years ago

Jay, respectfully, I think you misunderstand self-interest.  Just because something has a short term appeal doesn’t mean it’s in my long term self interest; there are plenty of people in prison for doing something that felt good in the short term.  And because humans live in community, there are certain behaviors that simply can’t be tolerated; a Lord of the Flies community in which it was every man for himself would not survive for very long.  It is in my interest to live in a community that is safe, where property rights are respected, where personal liberty is respected, and… Read more »

Eric the Red
Eric the Red
7 years ago

JohnM, I avoided your question because answering it properly would require doing a lot of writing.  The Reader’s Digest version is as follows:  I absolutely believe that opposition to gay marriage is founded on patriarchal views of gender roles, and that egalitarianism necessarily leads to gay marriage, even though your Christian egalitarian friends may not have figured that out yet.  They will in time.  I also think that in a majority of cases, you are correct that gender is black-and-white, male and female, and it’s obvious who is who, although as with any other bright line there are people who… Read more »

katecho
katecho
7 years ago

Eric the Red is incensed: “Katecho, you egregiously misrepresent Dawkins, who goes on to say that one of the significant differences between humans and other animals is that humans have the ability to apply rational thought to their actions rather than being driven purely by primal instinct.  Yes, it is true that our biochemistry is the template, but since humans have the ability to think, we can alter the template if we choose to do so in a way that other animals can’t.  So, if you’re going to quote Dawkins, please try to honestly and fairly represent his position.” I… Read more »

J
J
7 years ago

Dan, not to be overly decisive but I’d have to say Eric is correct in your case at least in principle. History (of the world) regardless of your timeline (old earth/young earth) is not on the side of “traditional marriage”. Honestly it seems to me that your way of defending marriage is the unbiblical widespread type of reasoning that contributed to the mess we are in right now. What did anyone in the bible write down if not “Clever” (capital C) arguments against sin whatever the type? If your reasoning were correct I imagine the bible would be much more… Read more »

Gervase Markham
7 years ago

Doug wrote: “This means that if a bisexual marries, and he takes permanent vows (which is what it means to be married), then either he is intending to break his vows through divorce, or break his vows through cheating, or keep his vows, which entail vowing to cease being bisexual.” I think it’s the last part of that logic which is faulty. A monogamous bisexual person does not cease to be bisexual. “Bisexual” is a description of an attraction (or set of attractions) and an orientation, not a description of a practice. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bisexual If a person with heterosexual orientation and… Read more »

Gervase Markham
7 years ago

Aargh. That’s unreadable. Please can this blog be changed to make two blank lines mean a paragraph break? :-(

Eric the Red
Eric the Red
7 years ago

Katecho, please explain how misogyny works just fine under utilitarianism.

Eric the Red
Eric the Red
7 years ago

Actually, Katecho, before you bother, let me give the most obvious reason (though there are others) why utilitarianism does not bless misogyny.  Humans that do well tend to elevate the rest of their communities; the discoveries made by an Edison and an Einstein have been of enormous benefit to all the rest of that.  The problem with prejudices like racism, sexism, and yes, homophobia, is that they place artificial barriers in front of talented people who would otherwise do well, and who would thus do things well that benefit the rest of society.  Barbara McClintock, for example, was a Nobel-Prize… Read more »

katecho
katecho
7 years ago

Gervase Markham wrote: I think it’s the last part of that logic which is faulty.  A monogamous bisexual person does not cease to be bisexual. “Bisexual” is a description of an attraction (or set of attractions) and an orientation, not a description of a practice. I think it’s the last part of that logic which is logic-choppy.  It seems to be more of an argument against the English language than against Doug’s point, which also makes it a red herring.  Bisexual can refer to the attraction alone, but the same word is also equally descriptive of the practice, depending on… Read more »

Matthias
7 years ago

Tautology is tautologous. But utilitarianism is hardly useful.

David Douglas
David Douglas
7 years ago

Eric tR: In you first response you write: …. “There is nothing on that sign that even remotely suggests the jeweler wouldn’t sell his and harem rings, or bisexual threesome rings, or even Greg and his daughter rings.  Maybe he would, maybe he won’t, since he’s in business to make money I suspect he probably would, but you can’t tell from the sign.” … “Maybe he would, maybe he won’t…”  Ha!  Given the experiences of Christians in business, it matters not what he would or will not do, it only matters who he’ll have to sell to if, after having… Read more »