A Response to Christians Who Oppose Gay Marriage and Gay Parents

I recently wrote a response to this letter printed in The Courier. They rang me around an hour later to get permission to print it with my name attached, I agreed, and with any luck it will be in Mondays edition of our local newspaper.

Below is a copy of what i wrote, but I would also like to point out today one of the replies i found on the Courier's website from one of the regular contributors as i think it is well worth a read to try and understand the psyche of some of those on the opposing team.
But first, my response letter.

“Won’t somebody please think of the children!”
I write in response to Brendan Keogh’s letter ‘Same-sex relationships damaging for children’, in which the author outlines reasons why gays should not be allowed to marry, or adopt.
To quote Mr Keogh, he believes that ‘Marriage is a legal and social institution with a biological foundation, which helps to bind a male to his mate for stability and for the children they might have’.
Note the sterile descriptions about how marriage is about ‘binding’ a male to his mate, note the specific gender mentioned, and note the complete absence of love, emotions, or commitment; things which I believe are much more vital to a healthy marriage and family life than mere biological compatibility.
The author claims that evidence supporting the view that same-sex parents can successfully raise healthy children is ‘shallow and biased’, yet offers no corollary evidence to support their claim that same-sex couples raising a child is ‘unnatural and damaging to them [the child]’. There are assertions yes; but no evidence.
According to the author, the role of a mother in raising a child is ‘the emotional security of the bonding touch and feeding’, whereas a father is required to ‘firmly model’ the child into adulthood. Such clear cut gender roles are not an intrinsic part of being a parent. There is no reason why a father cannot offer emotional security, and bond with their child during feeding. Nor is there anything stopping a mother from helping guide their child into adulthood. Asserting such roles is simply a throwback to the days when mothers stayed home to clean the house while men went off to bring home the bacon.
Any argument about a child being robbed of their biological identity falls flat when you look at the multitude of families out there that raise adopted children, or are comprised of single parents, and are able to produce perfectly well-adjusted individuals.
The author’s clear aversion to same sex relationships in general is evident in the language they use, calling their mutual love an ‘unnatural satisfaction’.
This appeal to natural law however is no more than a veiled appeal to religious values. If we are to accept natural law as a governing factor in who can raise children, then sterile couples would be banned from adoption. Yet point out that homosexual coupling is prevalent throughout the natural world, and suddenly natural law is relegated to the sidelines.
Again we see the opponents of homosexual marriage and adoption sinking further into malaise as they try and justify their outdated views. No longer willing to attack the unions directly, they now seek to reduce the argument to sterile biological terms, and relegate marriage to an institution solely derived for the act of procreation and child rearing.
Never is love mentioned in this argument. Not the love that parents feel for their children, which is a necessity to raising a child, nor the love between two people who are committed to entering into a marriage together.
Opponents of same sex couples can no longer sway public opinion by simply pointing out how offended their sensibilities are by the existence of such people, so now they are reduced to echoing Maude Flanders perennial cry of “Won’t somebody please think of the children!” in the hope that appealing to peoples innate sense of responsibility toward children will blind them to the obvious flaws in their arguments.
To grow up as a healthy and well-adjusted person you don’t need a male and female to raise you; you need parents who love you.

I'm pretty happy with that response. And responding seems to be the main way that i ever get the motivation to send anything into The Courier, which is guess isn't a bad thing.

But then last night i was checking the comments on this article, which were assuring in their general disagreement with the authors thesis, until i stumbled upon this reply:

Thanks Brendan, well said. It's very sad that so many confuse love with lust. Looking at same-sex relationships today , some think it's keeping up with the times. If they went into history, they would know that it's all been done before. The best thing to do, is to live morally with Love. If you truly love your children, you will give them a Mum & Dad that are married.
People like to rubbish the Churches of any denomination if they can't get what they want out of it. Why is it that Christians always get the blame for all bad? True Christians are devastated, seeing how obscene some have become. They are not judging you, but are sad for such behaviour. The children raised by same-sexes, may not be bad, but they don't know how to live morally, they only know self-gratification, and their minds are tainted with this. Real Happiness, is doing it Right!

It is cliche Christian fundamentalist claptrap, from the bad grammar, to the randomly capitalised initials, and from the hypocritical theme (we aren't judging you; but here are my judgements of your behaviour...), to the smug sense of moral authority. But the one line that really sent my blood boiling was this one:

The children raised by same-sexes, may not be bad, but they don't know how to live morally, they only know self-gratification, and their minds are tainted with this.

Really? People can say this in today's day and age, and not feel as if they are on the wrong side of not only history, but also decency?

One of the best parts of being an atheist and confronting these people (albeit online and in no direct way) is that i don't mind pointing out that i am judging them. I judge her words as phenomenally offensive. I judge her to be an insensitive person, for suggesting that homosexual people don't know love from lust, or that they are only choosing a lifestyle for the sake of 'keeping up with the times'.

Rest assured, I dont think my judgement comes from anything but my own opinions, but I am willing to put my argument to the test against hers, and i figure that if one can put a rigorous argument together of their own accord, rather than referring to some ancient text, then surely there is merit in this?

Anyway, thats my little rant over; what do you all think?

MM

Bernardi Doesn't Get It: On Same Sex Marriage and Polygamy

Sigh, more dreck from a Liberal Party member.

Liberal Senator, and Tony Abbott's former personal parliamentary secretary, Cory Bernardi is again defending his comments regarding a spurious link between homosexual marriage, polygamous marriage and even bestiality.

A cursory Google search shows that Cory likes to have his photo taken with books, but finds it hard to keep his eyes on the page

Clearly not fazed by the public backlash at his original equivocation of these relationships, Bernardi now believes that a petition being organised in support of polygamous relationships vindicates his earlier remarks.

"I stand on the record and say, well I was right,"

This from the same man whose internal logic insists that loving someone of the same sex can be easily correlated to having sex with an animal:

"Bestiality, of course it was an extreme example, but once again it's linked to the radical agenda of the Greens Party,"

He calls it an extreme example, but still seriously thinks it a valid one, and what’s more asserts an untenable link to Green Party policy.

Regarding the question of homosexual marriage Bernardi had this to say:

"I think there should be alarm . . . If you're going to re-define a word to satisfy demands of a minority then you're going to face continuing demands in that space.''

The thing he fails to take into account is that it isn’t a minority that is demanding this right; it is the majority!

Yes, the subset of the population that is gay is a minority; but the subset that wants gay marriage to be made legal is a majority. I firmly believe that gays should be able to marry if they choose to, even though I myself am not gay, and would thus never benefit directly from the ability to do so. So while I am not a part of the minority being denied rights, I am a part of the majority that believes this should be rectified.

Those who are arguing for polygamous relationships to be given the same right however do not have the backing of the majority of Australians. They are both a minority in this sense, and also in the obvious sense that the majority of Australians are not tempted to take multiple spouses (we assume).

I'll just leave this here

This is the fundamental difference that needs to be addressed in dealing with fallacious arguments like Mr Bernardi’s. We are not seeking to affirm rights for minorities because they demand them, but rather because the majority recognise these inherent rights. You don’t have to share in a minority’s reality in order to agree with their position. And when the majority of the population believes that these rights should be recognised, it is not kowtowing to the minority; it is the will of the majority.

What’s worse is that setting up ones position based solely on the ‘slippery slope’ argument fails to take into account any differences between propositions. It simply asserts that if you allow one thing, then you must allow others. The same argument was dragged out in opposition to mixed marriages, and no doubt many of those who employed it in the past would feel as vindicated of their bigoted beliefs due to the push for gay marriage coming after mixed race marriages, as Bernardi does when facing polygamy today.

But just because one thing can lead to another, does not mean it must. And what’s more, just because one thing is allowed, does not mean all subsequent things must also be permitted.

The strength of the slippery slope argument rests solely on its ability to prove a link between these subsequent propositions. In this sense, Bernardi and others fail miserably.

There are fundamental differences between allowing gay marriage, and allowing polygamous marriage. One requires a fundamental change to the marriage code, and associated laws, the other does not.

It is not hard to substitute a husband and husband, or a wife and a wife, for a husband and wife in our legal system. It is fundamentally the same thing; recognising a relationship between two individuals. Indeed much of our legal system now accepts the role of same sex relationships in one form or another. Adding a third party to the affair however would require a whole new set of rules to deal with the ambiguity or asymmetry of a multi-partnered relationship, whether it be sorting out inheritance, defining guardianship and so on.

All this being said, I myself don’t have any major objections to polygamous relationships, I just don’t think them very practical, or stable. If I was to be proven wrong, and shown that people could make such an arrangement work harmoniously, then more power to them.

But at the end of the day these two arguments are separate arguments, linked only by the fact that they both deal with relationships and marriage, but not linked in any fundamental way that would demand both be recognised should either ‘cross the line’ into law.

Thanks for reading,

MM

Marriage Should Be Based On Love, Not Procreation: A Rant

The opinion section of my local newspaper, The Courier, has been heating up a lot lately with arguments regarding marriage equality. One post in particular set my argumentative mind a flurry, so I penned the below response. It didn’t make it into the Letters to the Editor section (there seems to have been a plethora of responses printed, so I am using that excuse to explain why mine slipped through the gaps), so I figured I’d post it here, with a couple of annotations:

I write in reply to Father Bernard McGrath’s letter (Misguided Sympathies Destroying Marriages), in which he tries to define marriage based on the ability to procreate alone.
 The author states that marriage is a personal and public institution for the good of society, and I agree with him. He then goes on to explain exactly why same sex partnerships should be excluded from this institution, and why he believes this is a fair outcome. This is where our views diverge.
 Father Bernard’s arguments start to get tenuous very early on.
First he states that marriage is a law of nature, separate from religious and state laws, failing perhaps to realise that same sex relationships are likewise a part of nature. He goes on to highlight the procreative nature of marriage, in that it is intended for the creation of babies, but then seeks to give a pass to those who are unwilling to reproduce, by asserting that they ‘give witness’ to what he believes to be the ultimate purpose of marriage; again procreation.
 [Note:I believe that this witnessing he refers to is simply the fact that married couples have sex. Why he doesn’t believe that same sex couple ‘witness’ in a very similar way is again left unanswered]
 Now I don’t come to this argument devoid of my own views and beliefs; I am an atheist to the bone, and a happily married man. However I would argue that rather than basing the institution of marriage (something the Father and I both believe to be for the good of society) on the mere act of procreation, we should instead focus on what makes marriage, and the union it represents, truly important to our society: love.
 I married my wife not so that we could procreate (after all, we had successfully achieved this prior), but rather because I love her with all my heart, and wish to spend the rest of my life with her. This is the form of love and devotion that I believe we as a society should celebrate with the title of marriage; not just the act of procreation. After all, many people choose not to procreate, and many more still are unable to procreate. I would challenge Father Bernard to explain to me how a married same sex couple adopting a child would be functionally any different than an infertile married couple adopting one of their own.
 Father Bernard’s arguments belie his conservative and outdated views when he seeks to explain that equality isn’t as simple as some ‘misguided’ advocates think. He states “After all, a man cannot be a mother nor a woman a father, so they can never be absolutely equal”, but fails to realise that both of these things are in effect equal; both are parents. Instead he champions the woefully outdated rhetoric of ‘same but different’.
 In another  telling line the author laments the fact that if same sex marriage were permitted then marriage would no longer be centred around our ability to procreate, but rather it would exist as ‘something primarily centred on the desires and emotions of adults’.
Yes it would; and for most people out there I would argue that this is what marriage currently means for them. It is an expression of their desires and their emotions; of their feelings toward those they love. Ask someone why they got married, or want to get married, and I guarantee that the vast majority will mention the word ‘love’ before they do the impersonal term ‘procreate’.
 Let Christians have Christian marriages by all means, but don’t seek to ban others from expressing their love because it hurts your own personal definition of marriage. After all, those who want to marry for procreative means are free to do so, and allowing gays and non-Christian heterosexuals to marry for love isn’t going to hamper anyone’s desire to go forth and multiply.
 At the end of the day we are not even arguing about the legitimacy of same sex relationships anymore; as a society we accept this as normal. However in a vain attempt to exclude same sex couple from their exclusive club, we instead find ourselves arguing about trivial definitions. Above I have outlined a brief argument as to why marriage should be defined by love, whereas the opposition seems to think it should be based on the act of procreation. My proposal would include both subsets, the opposition’s seeks to exclude a group of people simply because they can’t procreate. Which seems fairer?
 Mathew Morton
 Ballarat

Again, I can’t help but note the apparent dissonance  expressed by opponent of gay marriage, and how I believe Australians on average view the institution. So rarely is the word love even used by these opponents that you begin to wonder if this is a conscious effort. Have they realised that they have lost the battle as to whether homosexual love is genuine love, and thus want to distance the act of marriage from this altogether?

Then there is this lovely little gem written by Courier regular Anniemee in response to a Doctors comment that marriage is a social institution, free to change and reflect society’s views about love:

“Well Dr Robert Watson, that is the most stupid comment I've ever read. I don't agree with much Fr B McGrath says, as I'm not a Catholic, but as far as life is concerned 'Marriage' is about procreation! AND it's great that we can choose the love of our life who we want to procreate with in this country.
I love my neighbour, but I will not procreate with him. I love my children, but will not procreate with them.
What an uneducated nonsense you spout here. What are you thinking? You need to go a little further than your own distorted mind to find the answer. It sounds like you are in a same sex relationship and are looking to justify this in your own conscience. Hey, I love my Dog too, perhaps we should all marry the pets we love. Please Courier, print this for the Doctor.”

All this mind you in response to this brief comment:

“FR Bernard McGrath states (The Courier, April 16) that marriage is based in the 'natural order of procreation'.
I suggest that marriage is a social construct that has been created by humans. As we created the construct, therefore we can change it. Love is love and it should be at the heart of any marriage.”

Again, I was compelled to respond, and you can see that response at the website if you have nothing better to do, however I think it worth noting the truly warped way that gay marriage is being opposed in these forums.

Here again we find someone arguing actively that love has nothing to do with marriage, only the act of procreation is paramount. Sure you can love your spouse, but if you aren’t willing to procreate with them, then you have no business marrying them. Indeed this commenter fails to make any distinction between the love she has for animals and neighbours, and the love she has for a spouse, beyond the act of procreation.

In her view the only difference between the relationship she has with a dog, versus that of a husband, is that she can procreate with one, and not the other.

There seems an obvious dishonesty in these arguments. I don’t doubt for a second that those arguing for marriage basis in procreation would also argue that the love they have for their spouse, and the relationship it forms, is quantitatively different to other forms of love and relationship. This unique relationship and love is what marriage should symbolise, not the intersection of love and procreative viability.

Rant complete

MM