Page 1 of 1
  1. It is a bit more complicated than that...
    It is a bit more complicated than that... January 14, 2014 at 8:47 am . Reply

    While there are indeed people who, as you put it, fear a “Gay-Marriage-Pocalypse,” I think you are looking at the worst examples to the exclusion of the much less panicked and more cerebral arguments out there regarding gay marriage. Your argument seems to implicitly assume that only stupid/bigoted/hateful people could possibly object to gay marriage, or rather, if you look at it another way, prioritize opposite-sex marriage. This certainly seems to be an increasingly popular position, where once people could simply disagree in good faith, a sadly elusive thing today.

    But, in fact, a perfectly rationale argument can be made in favour of what might be described as the “traditional family,” and it takes a lack imagination or good faith in other people’s intentions to fail to see it.

    That argument relates to children and the desirability of having a mother and a father. Many if not most people agree that mothers and fathers have important complimentary roles. Until very recently, the radical position would have been to say otherwise. To say that gender is irrelevant in this consideration is to implicitly say that there is no particular value in having a father or mother. It is not clear to me why this should be any less offensive than prioritizing opposite-sex parents in adoption. Such an outlook is also strangely at odds with liberal arguments for greater female presence in the business world and other spheres.

    Of course, not all will agree that there is particularly any value in complimentary mother-father roles, but is it really pathological or reflective of panic or blind hate to be among those who do? Many people are perfectly aware that gay people are just that, people — some good, some bad, and most in between — while also thinking that — in general, on average, with all the exceptions that our complicated lives make unavoidable — having a mother and father (or closest substitute in the case of adoption) is a good ideal.

    You seem to prioritize logic and rationality in your outlook, which is admirable. If you tried to see this from another point of view, you might appreciate that the debate can actually be more nuanced than you appear to think.

    It isn’t simply about fearful, hard-wired-to-hate, knuckleheads versus the enlightened. Much in the same way as ticking the box for a centre-left political party doesn’t mean you are wishing for the next incarnation of Chairman Mao.

  2. "Jimmy"
    "Jimmy" January 15, 2014 at 11:37 am . Reply

    More conservatives probably should to do more to promote role models and combat anti-gay bigotry. You are right that plenty of anti-gay marriage advocates are fearful of, or hateful toward, gay people. But, once again, I don’t see why that necessarily should be the case. You are observing people perhaps in your personal life or the media, but that is not to say all people who think differently from you are like that.

    “The truth is, people who oppose same-sex marriage really don’t care enough to try help these kids at all:”

    This is a generalization. I know otherwise that not everyone who has regard for the traditional family unit is some fire-breathing bigot. Can you really not imagine the picture being more complex? You seem surprised that I sound “lucid.” Perhaps this can be a lesson that not everyone within a certain ideological sphere is the same — caricature conservatives and liberals et al don’t represent that nuances of positions on important arguments.

    You call my argument “hogwash,” but you do more to question other people’s motives than to argue that there is something obscene about thinking children deserve a mother and father where possible.

    For the record, I never implied, or certainly never intended to imply, that children of gay parents are likely to turn out gay, or that was a concern of mine, as you say.

    Regarding marriage between different races, the argument, while again increasingly popular, is actually weak. I would argue, with science on my side, that the differences between the races are negligible in comparison to those between gender. Skin colour is fundamentally arbitrary, especially before society starts to impart certain ideas onto it. Moreover, procreation is not by definition based on unions between whites and whites, and blacks and blacks etc. Biology, however, has dictated that the ONLY way to reproduce is through a man and woman. This is something very fundamental in our nature.

    I don’t have any “fake concern,” nor do I fear or dislike any group en mass. I am simply a normal person who believes, like countless others, that there is a sound argument in favor of a biological mother and father raising their children, or the closest possible substitute.

  3. Luke
    Luke January 20, 2014 at 10:43 am . Reply

    “Sweden and South Africa have not exploded in a national paroxysm of spontaneous Village People performances.”

    I, for one, would love to see this happen.

Post Comment