Two of the statements we often hear from marriage neutering activists and homosexuality advocates in general are some variations of...
1) "We're your family, your neighbors, your friends, your coworkers, your teachers, your firefighters, your police officers, and your doctors."
and
2) "We have contributed to providing products and services that you have used."
While such statements might make the ignorant more aware that they have encountered homosexual people in the ordinary course of their lives, whether they know it or not, such statements are not good arguments for homosexual behavior or the necessity of neutering marriage licensing.
The first statement is a curious appeal to popularity - as if the popularity of something makes it good or true or necessitates action. I say "curious" because even the most strident homosexuality advocates know that people who identify as homosexuals, or consistently feel strong homosexual feelings are in the minority. So heterosexuality is more popular. Just because I have a family member or friend or professional associate who wants something doesn't mean I am obligated to give to them. While appealing to my concern for them as a fellow human being, the activist for change really is asking me to set aside my own convictions and feelings and to give up my vote to their cause. They are claiming to rest their happiness on my actions. If someone is relying on a marriage license to make them happy, they will be sorely disappointed, as many people have discovered.
Our government is there to protect the conditions that allow us to pursue happiness in an orderly society, not make us happy.
Regarding statement number 2: Since I, and most other people who recognize that marriage licensing should not be neutered, especially by courts, have never expressed a desire that homosexual people disappear, then I can only conclude that we are being asked to believe that because we make an exchange with someone for a good or service they provide, they believe we are obligated to offer moral, social, and political support for everything they do or want. But if that is the case, then why doesn't it work the other way around?
It matters not to me if a famous person is history or someone making great contributions to society today was or is a homosexual person. Homosexual behavior had little to no part in their societal contribution. What have they contributed to society that they couldn't if they have been completely celibate? Or engaged only in heterosexual behavior? As much as it rankles some people to hear, homosexual behavior, while it may be enjoyable for the individuals participating, contributes nothing positive to general society, but some forms of it are especially susceptible to spreading disease. Meanwhile, heterosexual behavior is how all of us got here – even test tube babies wouldn't be here if their ancestors hadn't engaged in heterosexual behavior.
Which brings me to another reason those arguments aren't compelling. The same statements could be made of any number of other groups of people with a common cause or trait, including Bible-believers, marriage defenders, and people who value judicial restraint. I dare say, to the "gay" or "lesbian" who is reading this and believes their relationship with their partner should be licensed as marriage by the state – that there are people in your life you enjoy, love, respect, or count on in some way who believe that your relationship should not be licensed as marriage by the state, or even be called marriage on a social level. They may even think homosexual behavior is wrong. You may have no idea they feel this way – they are "in the closet", so to speak, at least around you. And if this is the case, it could be because you have demonstrated intolerance, and have loudly championed using the force of the courts to overturn their votes. If they have been civil enough to carry on their relationships with you, perhaps you should be civil enough not to cut them off if you discover they don’t agree with you.
(This is a modified version of something I originally posted at The Opine Editorials)
The first statement is a curious appeal to popularity - as if the popularity of something makes it good or true or necessitates action. I say "curious" because even the most strident homosexuality advocates know that people who identify as homosexuals, or consistently feel strong homosexual feelings are in the minority. So heterosexuality is more popular. Just because I have a family member or friend or professional associate who wants something doesn't mean I am obligated to give to them. While appealing to my concern for them as a fellow human being, the activist for change really is asking me to set aside my own convictions and feelings and to give up my vote to their cause. They are claiming to rest their happiness on my actions. If someone is relying on a marriage license to make them happy, they will be sorely disappointed, as many people have discovered.
Our government is there to protect the conditions that allow us to pursue happiness in an orderly society, not make us happy.
Regarding statement number 2: Since I, and most other people who recognize that marriage licensing should not be neutered, especially by courts, have never expressed a desire that homosexual people disappear, then I can only conclude that we are being asked to believe that because we make an exchange with someone for a good or service they provide, they believe we are obligated to offer moral, social, and political support for everything they do or want. But if that is the case, then why doesn't it work the other way around?
It matters not to me if a famous person is history or someone making great contributions to society today was or is a homosexual person. Homosexual behavior had little to no part in their societal contribution. What have they contributed to society that they couldn't if they have been completely celibate? Or engaged only in heterosexual behavior? As much as it rankles some people to hear, homosexual behavior, while it may be enjoyable for the individuals participating, contributes nothing positive to general society, but some forms of it are especially susceptible to spreading disease. Meanwhile, heterosexual behavior is how all of us got here – even test tube babies wouldn't be here if their ancestors hadn't engaged in heterosexual behavior.
Which brings me to another reason those arguments aren't compelling. The same statements could be made of any number of other groups of people with a common cause or trait, including Bible-believers, marriage defenders, and people who value judicial restraint. I dare say, to the "gay" or "lesbian" who is reading this and believes their relationship with their partner should be licensed as marriage by the state – that there are people in your life you enjoy, love, respect, or count on in some way who believe that your relationship should not be licensed as marriage by the state, or even be called marriage on a social level. They may even think homosexual behavior is wrong. You may have no idea they feel this way – they are "in the closet", so to speak, at least around you. And if this is the case, it could be because you have demonstrated intolerance, and have loudly championed using the force of the courts to overturn their votes. If they have been civil enough to carry on their relationships with you, perhaps you should be civil enough not to cut them off if you discover they don’t agree with you.
(This is a modified version of something I originally posted at The Opine Editorials)
The statement "we are your family and neighbors" is not presented as an argument in and of itself. It is meant only to provide folks with a perspective from which to consider the arguments. A perspective other than the outdated stereotypes, distortions, and outright lies they may have encountered in the media.
ReplyDeleteSenator Rob Portman's recent statement is a textbook example. He said: "As a congressman, and more recently as a senator, I opposed marriage for same-sex couples. Then something happened that led me to think through my position in a much deeper way."