Wherein Miss Clara investigates a logical fallacy.

The thing about being raised by English professors is that it warps you mentally, for life.

By the time I was ten I had acquired, through endless exposure at the dinner table, a number of bizarre intellectual interests, a healthy respect for etymology, and a deeply compulsive sense of annoyance when people make certain kinds of rhetorical errors. (Things I did not acquire at the dinner table at any point: the ability to spell without computer assistance; a reliable detector for homophone errors; the ability to tolerate large doses of academic politics.) I mean, I was raised by people who taught rhetoric, composition, and critical thinking, and now this is how weird I am: I have a favorite logical fallacy. I see red when people use misuse the word implies. I can’t stand the science reporting in the NY Times, not because of the frequently suspect science, but because of the frequently terrible logic—though those do often amount to the same thing.

My favorite logical fallacy is actually cum hoc (ergo) propter hoc, but today I want to talk about a different one, because it’s been coming up so often in the arguments over gay marriage that Feminist Hulk tweeted about it.

Here is a statement which is true: it is discriminatory to permit a right to one class of people and deny it to another. (1)

Here is another statement which is true: marriage is, traditionally, a deeply problematic, heteronormative, and misogynistic institution. (2)

The SCOTUS cases surrounding Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act are bound up in a lot of legal contortionism, but to the limited extent that they address either of these issues, they exclusively address (1). They have absolutely nothing to do with (2). It is completely possible to support SCOTUS overturning Prop 8 and DOMA and still have serious issues with marriage as an institution; it’s just completely, 100% irrelevant. The problematic, heteronormative, and misogynistic problems with marriage are just not on the table. They’re not being asked, they’re not being raised, they’re not being argued. The only thing that’s actually at issue is (1): a group of people (opposite-gender couples) is, at present, being afforded a right which is denied to another group of people (same-gender* couples).

Here’s the thing that’s got me all het up over this here bucket o’ gin: there’s a significant group of people within the queer community who oppose same-gender marriage because of (2). Because marriage is traditionally a problematic, heteronormative, and misogynistic institution, they are arguing against the elimination of the discriminatory principle, as in (1), that is intrinsic to granting one group of people (opposite-gender couples) a right which is denied to another group of people (same-gender couples).

This is both bad politics and bad logic.

I don’t know how I feel about marriage, as in, for me personally; I’m almost completely aromantic, so the odds of it ever coming up in my case are slim to vanishing. But my parents have been married for forty-five years, and I’m happy for them; and my sister can’t marry her lady of over a decade even if she were to want to, and that pisses me the fuck off. The issue with granting same-gender couples the right to marry doesn’t have a damn thing to do with whether or not marriage is a good thing, or a bad thing, or a one-way ticket to bed death, misery, and emotional resentment, or the be-all and end-all of gay rights (spoiler alert: it isn’t). The only issue here that real people care about (as opposed to issues that lawyers care about—separate post entirely) is what circumstances under which the government can justify granting a right to one group of people, and denying it to another.

And if sexual orientation is one of those circumstances, that is very, very bad news.

I wholeheartedly support discussing the problems with marriage. Marriage can be a problematic thing! But it’d be one thing if the thing that was up for discussion was whether we should grant same-gender couples the right to marry, XOR** we should grant no one the right to marry.  But that’s not the question that is currently up for discussion. The question that is up for discussion is whether we should grant same-gender couples the right to marry, full stop. And given that opposite-gender couples have the right to marry, yes, we should grant same-gender couples the right to marry.

The thing that’s at issue here is solely whether it’s discriminatory to let straights marry and queers not. YES. YES IT IS DISCRIMINATORY. This is not rocket science. No one—not even queers!—will be forced to get gay married if gay marriage is legalized! All us queers up in this joint can keep fucking wildly in sin and laugh riotously at the people trooping dutifully up to the altar!! The only thing that will happen is that the government has one fewer niche in which it is acceptable to tell Group A “yes,” and Group B “no.” That’s it! That’s all that will happen!!

And that’s a damn good thing to have happen, even if marriage does lead to inevitable bed death, misery, and emotional resentment.

Please don’t say that (2) marriage is, traditionally, a deeply problematic, heteronormative, and misogynistic institution, and therefore not (1) it is discriminatory to permit a right to one class of people and deny it to another. You are wrong. You are just wrong. You are wrong, wrong, wrong; and my ability to tolerate it is not actually increasing with the increasingly liver-destroying quantities of gin I am swallowing. The only thing that is at issue in the SCOTUS decisions is (1), and (1) is just plain straight-up true. So. Can we please stop arguing about (2) as though it somehow has something to do with (1)? It doesn’t. It’s a good conversation to have, but it’s about as relevant to (1) as my BA is to my employability prospects (i.e., not at all).

* As I understand the legal issues, in some states, at least, transgender people can marry opposite-gender partners without surgery, which is why I’m kind of leery of using the phrase “same-sex” here, but please correct me if I am misreading that article. I’m not a lawyer; I’m just a drunk with a laptop.

** Um, I actually can’t figure out how we say “XOR” in English—see above, re: gin—but “XOR” means “exclusive or”: or, “OR, but not AND”—either A or B, but not A and B. It is possible that I am a little drunk.

Wherein Miss Clara lays down some relentless, hot and heavy, hard-core… civics lessons.

There’s a lot of things I don’t like. I feel like that should go without saying, but just in case: I, like most people, sometimes don’t like things. For example: I don’t like nattou. I feel like I should like nattou, because it’s great for you and in general I like things with that kind of salty-savory flavor, but the texture is just way beyond anything I can handle. So, yeah. I don’t like nattou. I also don’t like wearing shorts (they make my knees feel surprised), scary movies, or roller coasters that go upside down. I in general try to focus on the things that I do like, when saying things publicly on the Internet where people can read them, but that decision mostly has to do with why I am on the Internet: usually I write dirty stories and sometimes I write about writing; do you really care that shorts make my knees feel surprised? That decision doesn’t really have anything to do with whether or not there are things I don’t like. There are in fact a bunch of things out there that I don’t like! There are even people out there that I don’t like! But again: do you care that I don’t like Sally Orangutantina** who used to stick “KICK ME” signs on my back in the third grade? I feel like you probably don’t! I also know that I have things that I did in the third grade (or, like, last week) that make me feel terrible when I think about them, and maybe that’s Sally Orangutantina’s thing that makes her feel terrible when she thinks about it, all those “KICK ME” signs when we were in the third grade, so I kind of feel like bringing it up might accidentally and unnecessarily ruin her day—but that’s kind of an essay for another time.

What this essay is about is freedom of speech.

Here are some statements that don’t mean the same thing: “Speech should be free,” and “Speech should be free of consequence.”

Or maybe: “You have a legal right to say whatever you want,” and “You have a social right to say whatever you want.”

Or, better yet: “We should, as a society, treat all opinions as equally valid and valuable,” and “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

What “freedom of speech” actually means (in an American context) is that you have the right to say things and not be put in jail for them. Not be put in jail, or muzzled by the government, or subjected to organized, state-sponsored persecution that deprives you of your freedom or your livelihood (as you can see, we don’t always get it right). It doesn’t mean that you get to say whatever you want and have everyone like you, support you, and pay for your creative work.

And yeah. I’m talking about Superman. Specifically, I’m talking about this wonderful radio essay by Glen Weldon, and the kind of irritating number of responses where phrases like “free speech” and “censorship” and “witch hunt” get tossed out there without any regard for what those ideas actually mean. (For the record, the exact same thing happened with Chick-fil-A over the summer, and it was annoying then, too.)

The tricky thing about throwing “free speech” around the way it tends to get thrown around on the Internet is that it doesn’t actually usually apply to the things that people try to apply it to. Orson Scott Card does, in fact, have a legal right to say whatever he wants about gays and gay marriage. But he doesn’t have a social right to say whatever he wants about gays and gay marriage. In some parts of the Internet, everyone will be patting him on the back, I’m sure, for his (hateful, bigoted) behavior towards the queer community, but no one actually owes him that. That’s just, like, a free bonus he gets for there happening to be other hateful, bigoted people on the Internet. The broader social contract doesn’t include “Let everyone who espouses prejudiced opinions slide; I mean, whatever, it’s all cool; let’s go share a blunt, man.” In fact, I’m pretty sure the social obligation to protect the basic human rights and dignity of the queer people toward whom Orson Scott Card and NOM are hateful and bigoted far outweighs anyone’s hurt feelings. If Sally Orangutantina had been a terrible homophobe who harassed and bullied me over my sexuality, then my calculus for whether or not I want to try to avoid ruining her day might change, because oppression is systemic and inescapable and poisonous and invisible, and as a result, oppression is always—always more painful to the people being oppressed than it is to the people who are being called out on doing the oppressing. (Again on the essay-for-another-time front: this is why if someone is saying something about you that you don’t like, it doesn’t mean you are being oppressed. Until it is systemic, inescapable, poisonous, and invisible, you’re not being oppressed. You’re just being criticized. It’s not the same thing.)

All people are equally valid and valuable. Not all opinions are equally valid and valuable. Some opinions are wrong. One of the opinions that is wrong is that not all people are equally valid and valuable.

I feel like this idea is much harder to grasp than it needs to be. We as a culture—and really, I’m talking about the English-speaking Internet, here, not so much American culture in meatspace, but the problem definitely does exist in both places—have a really hard time with understanding the difference between “You are a valid and valuable human being who has important things to contribute to the world around you” and “All of the things you think inside your head have the right to go unchallenged.” A huge percentage of the bullshit that goes down on the Internet goes down because people can’t tell the difference between someone attacking their opinions and someone attacking them as a person—and to be totally honest, part of that’s because people have a hard time phrasing their attacks to direct them at the opinion, and not the person, but again, essay for another time. What’s really going on here is that Orson Scott Card, who is, just like the rest of us, a valid and valuable person, is being criticized by his fellow valid and valuable people because he espouses a wrong opinion. And then other people are saying that that criticism is somehow abridging his freedom of speech, which it can’t, because—among other reasons—the criticism is being conducted by Orson Scott Card’s fellow valid and valuable people. Not the government. So that argument is very stupid.

I mean, there actually is a kind of interesting discussion to be had about what is owed to a, you know, valid and valuable human being with wrong, terrible, offensive, bigoted opinions, but it seems kind of bizarre to argue that economic support of their wrong, terrible, offensive, and bigoted opinions would be part of that. In part because that seems like it would imply that there’s definitely somewhere I can sign up for my intrinsic rights to economic support for my filthy gay porn. I mean, if there is and I just didn’t get the email, please, let me know, but in the meantime I’m going to assume that my understanding of how people get paid for creative output—you create something, you put it up for sale, people who anticipate that they will enjoy it give you money for it—is still in effect, and, you know. I’ll just keep working on that one.

When someone criticizes someone else’s opinion, they are not abridging anyone’s free speech. When someone calls for or participates in a boycott, they are not abridging anyone else’s free speech. Free speech protections have to do with the law. They have to do with the government. They have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not I give DC Comics money for something I don’t want to read, because I expect that I will find it offensive, or pay money for, because I don’t want to financially support the person who will get that money on the other end. If you have really strong feelings about why I should give nattou, or wearing shorts, or upside-down roller coasters another shot, you have a legal right tell me all about it! That’s fine! And I have a legal right to think you’re annoying, bin the nattou, wear skirts instead, and not get on the roller coaster until you promise me in writing that when I get off I can throw up on your shoes.

** Both name and person are completely made up. [Back]

Recommended Reading: Once a Marine, by Cat Grant

Riptide Publishing had crazy mega-cool Valentine’s Day hourly flash sales last week (@RiptideBooks, is all I’m sayin’), and I’m using laundry day to get acquainted with a few of my purchases, more or less at random. I just motored my way through this one, Once a Marine, by Cat Grant.

Here’s a summary, copy-pasted from the Riptide website:

Love is a battlefield.

Discharged under Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, former Marine major Cole Hammond is struggling to find a new identity. But PTSD casts a pall on everything, and his hard-nosed, homophobic father can’t even bear to look him in the eye. To top it all off, he’s pretty sure he’s flunking out of law school.

Marc Sullivan is a kind, sensitive romance author-slash-waiter with a thing for men in uniform. Cole’s not wearing his anymore, but there’s no mistaking the warrior Marc meets in the diner one rainy afternoon. Cole’s sexy smile and Carolina drawl prove irresistible, but Marc’s played this game before, and he always loses. Once a Marine, always a Marine, and if there’s one thing Marc knows about such men, it’s that they all leave him in the end. It doesn’t help that Cole’s practically closeted in public, or that he refuses to seek treatment for his PTSD.

But like any good Marine, Cole’s willing to fight for what matters. And like the characters in Marc’s stories, he’s certain that if they try just hard enough, together they can find their own happily ever after.

This is straight-up grown-up relationship porn, which is very possibly my favorite thing in the entire world. Yes, there’s sex (and yes, it’s super hot), but the thing that makes this book so engrossing is that the characters actually have actual, legit problems, which they actually, legitimately try to deal with, even when the choices that they’re facing really don’t have ideal options. This book contains adults making mistakes and then admitting to them, and trying their hardest and still sometimes fucking up. Marc and Cole are both damaged in believable and difficult ways, but their past damage isn’t used as an excuse for the pain they accidentally inflict on each other; they expect themselves and each other to man up and be better people as necessary to carve out a life together. They make demands of each other, and those demands aren’t treated as unreasonable or overbearing, but as an important part of making a life that involves more than one person. And the fact that it isn’t easy, that they succeed in fits and starts and fail in between, makes this book about infinity percent more relatable than a book where the conflict is manufactured and the resolution is all in the yielding. I want more books like this, where characters ask for what they need and get it. I want more books like this, where compromise is actually compromise.

Basically I’m being gross with feels all over my copy of Calibre, is what I’m saying. And I love it. This book is just… difficult, romantic, and satisfying. Really, really first-rate.

Cat Grant writes “books to make you purr”. You can pick up Once A Marine from Riptide Publishing, in print ($16.99), as an ebook ($6.99), or both together ($16.79). I am reviewing my own copy of the ebook, and I don’t get paid either for this review or for you clicking on those links.

(Aside: I’m still getting my Twitter/Tumblr cross-posting from WordPress hammered out, so my apologies if it looks weird while I do. ♥)

Recommended Reading: “The City War,” by Sam Starbuck

Sam Starbuck has been one of my favorite authors for many, many years, and I knew well enough that I would adore this story that I saved it for myself as a special treat.

It didn’t disappoint. Mr. Starbuck here, as always, has an incredibly deft hand with dialogue, and writes sex scenes that grow organically from and with the story and the characters, and the end result is brilliantly engrossing and alive.

Here’s the summary, copy-pasted from Riptide Publishing:

Senator Marcus Brutus has spent his life serving Rome, but it’s difficult to be a patriot when the Republic, barely recovered from a civil war, is under threat by its own leader. Brutus’s one retreat is his country home, where he steals a few precious days now and then with Cassius, his brother-in-law and fellow soldier—and the one he loves above all others. But the sickness at the heart of Rome is spreading, and even Brutus’s nights with Cassius can’t erase the knowledge that Gaius Julius Caesar is slowly becoming a tyrant.

Cassius fears both Caesar’s intentions and Brutus’s interest in Tiresias, the villa’s newest servant. Tiresias claims to be the orphaned son of a minor noble, but his secrets run deeper, and only Brutus knows them all. Cassius, intent on protecting the Republic and his claim to Brutus, proposes a dangerous conspiracy to assassinate Caesar. After all, if Brutus—loved and respected by all—supports it, it’s not murder, just politics.

Now Brutus must return to Rome and choose: not only between Cassius and Tiresias, but between preserving the fragile status quo of Rome and killing a man who would be emperor.

I always think it’s really remarkable when an author takes a story that most people know, in one form or another, and gives it a new and rich life that is denied to it in its best-known form, which is exactly what Mr. Starbuck has done here. I’m not at all a Classicist, either by education or inclination—I’ve read a lot of Mary Renault and I have the kind of vague familiarity with the 44 B.C. election cycle that one acquires over the course of being raised by feral Shakespeareans, but that’s about it—but the level of daily-life detail and three-dimensional character interaction present in this story completely transcends the idea of a story set against the backdrop of Caesar’s downfall. Caesar’s downfall is no backdrop: it’s woven intimately into all of Cassius, Brutus, and Tiresias’s interactions, even when it is not their subject; it weighs upon them and drives them, no matter how they may try to stand at a remove. And Tiresias, this total wildcard of a character with a portentous name, is beautifully crafted, and a wonderful surprise.

One of the things that’s often the trickiest to handle in fiction set in a different cultural or historical context is that the things the characters take for granted are very much not going to be the same things the reader takes for granted; but the characters don’t have any reason to make the differences explicit, since the differences are, within the characters’ points-of-view, transparent. I’m always interested to see how authors handle this as a narrative problem, and Mr. Starbuck has done an absolutely beautiful job. Rome’s sexual mores are very cleverly handled—of course; I’d expect nothing less—but in a lot of ways I think the strongest example of Mr. Starbuck’s skill with this issue is the early scene in which Brutus finds Tiresias in the stable. This scene is deeply painful to read, but utterly believable from both Tiresias and Brutus as characters, even in the parts where Brutus, the point-of-view character, is really in the wrong; and it does a tremendously good job of wrestling with an issue that we are as readers accustomed to wrestling with in a modern vocabulary without using that vocabulary as a crutch.

Mr. Starbuck also beautifully sketches his secondary characters: Porcia—Brutus’s wife—though she only appears in person briefly, is particularly delightful, and her relationship with Brutus is quite moving.

Overall, really powerful and gripping, the bitter along with the sweet. Highly recommended.

Sam Starbuck maintains a blog and website at Extribulum. You can pick up “The City War” from Riptide Publishing, either on its own ($4.99) or as part of the Warriors of Rome anthology ($19.97). I am reviewing my own copy of the stand-alone, and I don’t get paid either for this review or for you clicking on those links.

Fiction: “Flight”

A story by my… associate, 菊菜 瞬 (Kikuna Matata), is appearing in the current issue of Shousetsu Bang*Bang: No. 39, “Sword and Sorcery”.

“Flight” by 菊菜 瞬 (Kikuna Matata)
(Illustrated by noodlenoggen!)
Oliver’s halfway through his third pint of lukewarm and watery ale when he half-hears, half-feels, “You’ve been following me,” warm and a little damp against the side of his neck. He can’t quite check his half-smile; Edward obviously takes this as an invitation and slides a knee between Oliver and his right-hand neighbor (a half-troll with uncomfortably broad shoulders and beautiful table manners), then sits sideways on the bench.

Read it at:

All characters appearing in this work are entirely fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental. As always, this story is rated explicit and appropriate for adults only.