Soft Target: Republican stance of banning same-sex marriage

It’s been awhile since I’ve posted, but I’ve decided to introduce a type of post I’ll probably be making more of. I refer to the “Soft Target”-type post. I’m getting to be a busier guy, and because I’m not clever enough to come up with decent ideas 24-7, I still feel that there are obvious statements that exist in the public sphere that need addressing. The addressing itself probably is something that anyone that has put any attention to (and feels that rational behaviour should be a cherished construct) could figure out themselves. As it stands however I like talking about it, so I’ll post about it.
So I’ve seen republican stances on repealing same-sex marriage. Rick Santorum seems to be the worst offender, but simultaneously offering what appears as decent reasons for stopping same sex marriage. Consider his stance- that gay should not have additional rights but heterosexual couples should as they offer “usual, unique benefits to society” in that they procreate and continue society. Let’s tear this down by asking the questions that anyone who follows this idea should answer:
1. Does that mean that you are opposed to childless couples? If heterosexual couples do not desire to have children should they be forced? If heterosexual couples cannot have children should they have their extended rights removed?
2. Do you consider the value of adoptive parents? We have many, many unwanted children in this world who would have an staggeringly better quality of life provided they were taken care of by either heterosexual or homosexual couples. Some commentators have suggested that homosexual couples may bring up children to be homosexual, or that the upbringing will negatively affect the child. If there is negative effects, I cannot believe that these effects would be, at the barest consideration, more dramatic than the negative effects of being in care of an abusive heterosexual couple, or no parents to speak of. For those of you who believe homosexuals will raise more homosexuals, firstly, the science is in. Secondly, the logic of your argument insinuates that heterosexual couples raise only heterosexual individuals, and this is clearly not the case.
3. Statistically speaking, who is to say that children benefit society? How many of these children will tie into welfare? How many will be criminals? How many will extort taxes and ruin industries and… *gasp* turn out to be gay? Are you saying that you actively support criminals, tax dodgers, welfare grubs and homos?
Oftentimes I’ve heard the mantra of heterosexual couples possessing, “in principle” the potential to have children, and that this should be enough. So while the couple may not have kids, they can at least, in principle, have them. Firstly I’m not aware of any law being allowed because something may occur in principle. In principle an airplane can crash into a building. In principle, a dog can bite and kill a child. But let’s go beyond that.
Why is the delineation of “heterosexual couple” the point at which all other issues relating to child rearing are moot? While it is (at this point in history) overwhelmingly probable a child will be born into a heterosexual couple as opposed to a homosexual one, that is not to say there are not a plethora of other important issues. In principle, no couple of the age of 70 can procreate. In principle, a woman that has undergone a complete hysterectomy cannot procreate. Why don’t we exclude these people from the same rulings?
Hell, gay people would have better luck. A lesbian couple can get a sperm donation, a male homosexual couple can have a surrogate mother. Are you saying that these children, born not from both parents that raised them, are less worthy?
Ok. Bring in the Christian stance. Firstly, belief that times of sexual bigotry were a better time are patently false. Crime is lower than ever before, happiness is better than ever before. The economy is stronger (recent slides notwithstanding) and most importantly, personal freedoms are stronger and more powerful.
The woman in this video states “I firmly believed you had a mother”. Refer to the previous point regarding gays bringing up children. But consider the logic. Think of the wealth of untapped baby-making potential we are wasting!
Finally the Bible quotes. While it is debatable whether the Bible out and out says that homosexuality is a sin, let me refer you to what it also doesn’t like. Children should be sold into slavery if they disobey their parents, women should never talk against a man for any reason, you should never eat shellfish, women should go to an abandoned area outside of society when they are menstruating. Also, I would ask any Christian (or Jew for that matter), where is their most holy tent, made from brass, silver, gold et al? Why aren’t you murdering neighbors of a different religion, but raping their virgin daughters? As usual, religious groups cherry pick what they want to whinge about.
The outright fear of gays is clear, even in the face of clear bigotry. All of the rebuttals against gay marriage and of homosexuality in general misses one point. Just because you ban gay marriage, it is not like it will stop homosexuality. No gay person is going to go “oh well, that failed, time to start bonking a woman and have babies”. If a marriage is about love, which is what it should be, gays deserve every facet of it.


~ by freeze43 on February 2, 2012.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: