Playing with my Squidoo lens today (unfortunately not as dirty as it sounds), I stumbled across a fellow calling himself SaveTalkRadio . He describes himself as a "fiscal conservative" - If I wasn't so diplomatic, I'd call him an ignorant putz. But I'm a lady, dammit.
Anywho, he has a lens (page) titled "Hetrosexuals Do Not Have Special Rights". That is, you may have guessed, a crock of shit, but I read it for shits and giggles and at the end, felt the need to reply.
If you want to read the full page, you masochists, here's the link again: "I'm A Wanker - Ask Me How!" If you want to vote on his poll or comment I'd encourage that, though I'd urge you to speak thoughtfully rather than frothing at the mouth as I'm sure we'd all prefer to do.
If you're too lazy to click the link and/or read, I'll give you a brief rundown: SaveTalkRadio argues that Homosexuals and Hetrosexuals DO have equal rights to marriage, because they are both allowed to get married - to people of the opposite sex, of course. I read it, then my brain broke and I fell down.
This argument against the existence of discrimination while actively promoting discrimination is dangerous because it's insidious, intelligent and has a certain logic to it, despite that logic not resembling our earth logic.
If I hear one more time, "I have nothing against gay people, I just don't think they should get married", someones going to receive a hearty beating about the head with a heavy bound copy of my most verbose definition of the word "contradictory".
Here's what I had to say to the putz SaveTalkRadio:
Your argument is well-written and reasonably well-conceived, considering it's based on convoluted logic.
Marriage is the "institution" governments use for recognising that two people have entered into a contract that makes them legally and economically reliant on each other, but more than that, it implies an emotional bond not present in your average partnership contract. This emotional element is what raises marriage above, say, drawing up a few business contract papers in a lawyer's office.
Married couples are automatically extended certain rights, privileges and protections as they relate to tax, health benefits, custody of children etc - not just because of economic reliance, but because of this perceived emotional dependence on each other. It is recognised by government and the broader society that it will be more difficult and "painful" to unravel the lives of a married couple should this "contract" end, and it is also understood that during the course of a marriage, these bonds entwine two people together, so that they act almost as one and are treated as such.
Marriage is the "institution" governments use for recognising that two people have entered into a contract that makes them legally and economically reliant on each other, but more than that, it implies an emotional bond not present in your average partnership contract. This emotional element is what raises marriage above, say, drawing up a few business contract papers in a lawyer's office.
Married couples are automatically extended certain rights, privileges and protections as they relate to tax, health benefits, custody of children etc - not just because of economic reliance, but because of this perceived emotional dependence on each other. It is recognised by government and the broader society that it will be more difficult and "painful" to unravel the lives of a married couple should this "contract" end, and it is also understood that during the course of a marriage, these bonds entwine two people together, so that they act almost as one and are treated as such.
Gay people want to access these same rights and privileges offered by their government, as well as the acknowledgment that they are bound together just as intrinsically as an opposite-sex couple.
You say gays can access marriage, they just have to marry someone of the opposite sex. And that's where your logic gets pear-shaped. Understanding this exceptional, recognised bond seen to take place within a marriage, a gay man or woman marrying someone of the opposite sex would be far more damaging and offensive to the institution of marriage than opening it up to couples that fulfil and embrace this implied bond. I argue that by suggesting it, you are showing a disrespect for the institution of marriage that goes against your claimed defense and protection of it.
As for saying equal access for individuals is equal access, period - Marriage requires the right of the individual to be measured by their relationship to another person. Marriage is not an individual act. I don't care what dictionary you're reading, there has to be two people involved. If neither of these people are having their freedom of speech and expression, or cultural freedoms upheld and respected, this practice is discriminating. Access to governmental and legal protections ONLY IF you are a certain way is discrimination. You cannot means-test liberty.
As a conservative, fiscal or otherwise, I am surprised your argument would sanction the suppression or abolition of individual freedoms. If nothing else, they are the reason we can have this conversation right now - You can express your opinion, I mine, and neither of us expect to be punished for doing so.
You have every right to believe gay people should not be allowed to get married. But it is better to use straightforward honesty, such as "I just don't feel it is right", than to argue with false logic. In a free society, I cannot fault or discriminate against someone for feeling a certain way.
Of course, neither can you.
You say gays can access marriage, they just have to marry someone of the opposite sex. And that's where your logic gets pear-shaped. Understanding this exceptional, recognised bond seen to take place within a marriage, a gay man or woman marrying someone of the opposite sex would be far more damaging and offensive to the institution of marriage than opening it up to couples that fulfil and embrace this implied bond. I argue that by suggesting it, you are showing a disrespect for the institution of marriage that goes against your claimed defense and protection of it.
As for saying equal access for individuals is equal access, period - Marriage requires the right of the individual to be measured by their relationship to another person. Marriage is not an individual act. I don't care what dictionary you're reading, there has to be two people involved. If neither of these people are having their freedom of speech and expression, or cultural freedoms upheld and respected, this practice is discriminating. Access to governmental and legal protections ONLY IF you are a certain way is discrimination. You cannot means-test liberty.
As a conservative, fiscal or otherwise, I am surprised your argument would sanction the suppression or abolition of individual freedoms. If nothing else, they are the reason we can have this conversation right now - You can express your opinion, I mine, and neither of us expect to be punished for doing so.
You have every right to believe gay people should not be allowed to get married. But it is better to use straightforward honesty, such as "I just don't feel it is right", than to argue with false logic. In a free society, I cannot fault or discriminate against someone for feeling a certain way.
Of course, neither can you.
-- Naked Girl
Thoughts? Feelings? Throbbing headache from headdesk-ing?
Let me know if you chose to post :)
Follow my blog: http://socialsmores.blogspot.com
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment