Gay marriage: rational debate. Nah!

Creative Minority Report notes the disingenuous and absurd notions floating around regarding the discussion of ‘gay marriage.‘  How do they ever expect to have a rational debate when they behave like this?  Well, never; that’s the point.

I find it very odd that homosexuality is viewed as being either one kind of monolithic thing or another: either ‘choice’ or ‘born that way.’ I’ve known a lot of people over the years and I’ve noticed that homosexuals, like other folks, are not identical. Given that human beings are enormously complex creatures any effort to lump such a varied phenomena as human behavior in that way is ridiculous and patently false. There are probably a thousand factors that influence that outcome in various ways and in differing degrees, and their combination produces an even more varied etiology.  Of course this is done to facilitate argument and cast one side or the other in ‘good’ vs. ‘bad.’   Which establishes the Exclusion of the Third logical fallacy.

I have heard it said that 80% of prostitutes were sexually abused as little girls, and the other 20% don’t remember. Given the high levels of childhood sexual abuse that actually exists in society, why is this never spoken of as a likely formative element in those who practice a homosexual life style? Of course we would never want to attribute that to the push to normalize sex by adults with children, particularly those advocating lowering the age of consent; why, that would be racist or something. An honest discussion would raise this issue, and others.

I have known men who practiced elements of the homosexual life style and who were married to women and raising families they loved. These men struggled to remain faithful to their marriage vows and I respected them for continuing to try to live up to their ideals.

Finally, on ‘gay marriage:’ If marriage were nothing more than a sentimental fashion accessory to perfectly set off an ideal romance, I would have no problem with ‘gay marriage.’ Marriage, at least among reasonably mature adults, is not that. Marriage is the by far preeminent method by which humans create a stable environment in which to provide for the physical survival of children and to transmit human culture to the next generation. Homosexual unions are inherently infertile (Duh!). Further, they are legitimately seen as inimical to normal behavior (‘normal’ is defined as what usually happens, transgressive behavior practiced by only 3.5% or so of the population is legitimately seen as aberrant) because it undermines community standards which require tremendous commitment and ongoing effort to maintain, thus threatening the society as a whole.

Which is not to say the anybody afflicted with Same Sex Attraction Disorder is evil.  All alike are fallen creatures and exemplify that in many, many ways.  People so afflicted must be respected as human beings, this is non-negotiable.  This does not in any way imply that that we should tolerate their vices, nor that we be silent about those vices. Here’s a useful distinction: tolerance always applies to persons, never to bad ideas; intolerance always applies to bad ideas, never to persons.  It most certainly does not legitimize those vices even when bad law requires me to do so; that those who promote toleration for vice expect others to praise it as virtue is at best sloppy thinking.

Published in: on March 19, 2013 at 06:25  Leave a Comment