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

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

AAAAAAAAAAAAA Quick Post on ‘Jumping the Gun’ in Classifieds

My aforementioned MS Paint skills at work anonymyzing mobile phone numbers.

I saw the above ad in the Courier today, and I couldn't help but comment on it here.

1AAAAA CARS, ALL CARS

FREE REMOVAL

I don’t get it? I mean I get it, but on second glance, I don’t get why putting ‘1AAAAA’ was the strategy they chose.

I mean look at what they have elected to use; they clearly understand the concept of getting in on top based on the alphanumerical ordering system, hence the multiple A’s and single 1 in front of their ad proper. But it clearly didn’t work, because they forgot a couple of key points.

First, they forgot that there would be cars legitimately advertising their year model first (such as the pre-empting Mazda Astina), and which are thus numerically superior to a single 1. And secondly they forgot that no matter how many A’s you put after it, it is still going to the back of the line if anyone uses a single other letter past 1! I mean why include A’s at all, if you understand that a 1 pre-empts it? Did they think there would be a lot of 1BBBBBBB’s? Or 1AA’s? Yet they never considered a 11AAAA or the logical next step, 111AAA, then 1111AA, followed by 1111A and then eventually the far superior 11111?

Or perhaps they did it because they wanted to pack in a bit more legitimacy. After all people do use numbers to tell actual information about a car, as mentioned above, so perhaps they felt it would be a bit disingenuous to put 1111111 first, whereas people are so used to a bunch of A’s before an advertisement that it is no longer considered dishonest to jam them in front of your true advertising goal.

But hey, as I have said many times; I am prone to over thinking things.

I would however think that there would be an interesting study in here somewhere about the lengths of AAAAAAAA’s that people are willing to go to in their advertising.

At any rate, that is the end of my little rant on the subject.

MM

In The Courier

I have been a pretty regular commenter on The Courier's website this past couple of years. It’s a great way to interact with those in your community [I was going to say ‘especially the crazy people in the community', until I saw the double edge to that sword], and I had even managed to have a few of my comments cross over into the physical world when they were published in the Web Words section of the paper, which was nice.

But last week for the first time I noticed as I was typing one of my replies to a particularly inane Letter to the Editor, that its length was growing to well above what would fit in the meagre comment box provided. Rather than trim and cull sections as I usually do, I decided to submit this as my first ever Letter to the Editor.

It got in, despite its lengthy rant, and gave me a warm feeling for the day. I had a couple of people come by my desk at work and mention it, and all seemed to agree with my points, and claimed I wrote a nice piece. I was pretty wrapped, but was disheartened when it failed to appear on the internet as well.

How would I know what the public thought if I didn’t get any comments of my own?

What would the SvetlanaBabe’s, My Thought’s and Clint’s of Ballarat think of my letter?

I was not to know.

As a result I decided to chuck it up here, starting with the letter that was the catalyst for my response, so that at least somewhere there was a sense of continuity.

So here is the post by a Mister Phillip Slade; those of you in the audience who are averse to sloppy arguments, rash generalisations and fuzzy rationale, look away now.

Display of Australian flags disappointing31 Jan, 2012 02:57 PMI MUST say on seeing the omnipresent display of flags in and around Ballarat on Australia Day, I felt a sense of disappointment for the bearers of those flags. 

There was a time when we as a nation did not need to display a flag — other than at ceremonies and sporting events — to affirm our patriotism. 

We should therefore ask ourselves where this sudden inclination to air our nationalistic fervour comes from. 

Could it be a manifestation of John Howard's dog whistle politics? ("We shall decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come ..." — code for we will keep the foreigners out). 

And the multiplication of flags is acknowledgement of a perverted call to arms that still, to this very day, has an odious impact on those not fully sure of who or what they are, and in turn makes all refugees and immigrants feel marginalised. 

Phillip Slade 

Ballarat

I am not sure about you guys, but that post really made me want to say something in return. The article touches on a lot of things as it rambles aimlessly along: the objections people have shown in recent years to Australian flags, hostility toward Australia Day in general, it’s got a hint of conservatism, but also of out of control liberalism, it mentions nationalism, Howard, Refugees, immigrants; enough buzz words to incense someone no matter what quadrant of the political spectrum they find themselves

I don’t feel my reply needs any introduction, as it takes off in direct opposition to the above letter. Enjoy:

Just because our flag can be misappropriated, does not mean it should be hidden.

Phillip Slade’s letter to the editor (Display of Australian flags disappointing,31 Jan) in which he bemoans the ubiquitous Australian flags on Australia Day seems to highlight a man missing the point. 

Australia Day is a day to celebrate your nation, and what better way to display this than with the symbol of our nation; the Australian flag? To do so doesn’t have any underlying isolationist meaning as Phil suggests. 

He says “There was a time when we as a nation did not need to display a flag — other than at ceremonies and sporting events — to affirm our patriotism”. That may well be true, but it doesn’t make it right. How people displayed their love for Australia in the past doesn’t condemn us to the same solemn practises today. 

Contrary to Phil’s assertion, I believe we can safely celebrate Australia without fear of ostracising refugees or immigrants. Indeed I would think it quite the opposite; we should be celebrating Australia and showing these groups the true mettle of our nation. A nation that helps others and that was built by immigrants. 

Remember an immigrant is still an Australian, and if a refugee is successful in their citizenship, then so are they. They should feel no more marginalised by the display of Australian flags, then they do by the existence of an Australia Day. 

Just because some people can take our flag, and drape it over their shoulders whilst they commit crimes in a race riot, does not mean that the flag itself, or the ideals it carries, follow too. The Australian flag can be appropriated by those who think of Australia as ‘theirs’ and not available to outsides. It can be adopted by nationalistic bigots, but it doesn’t belong to them.I personally don’t fly a flag on Australia day, or any other day. I am not an overtly patriotic man, though I love the country I live in, I don’t hold it higher than any other man-made institution. But if others choose to I don’t look down on them, or feel ashamed at their Aussie zeal. 

My son is five and he loves waving a flag on Australia day because he thinks it is a great place to live in, and at the end of the day we shouldn’t take this away from him just because it can be likewise waved by those with more nefarious intent.

So then, what do you think? Yes, a bit of an all over the place rant, but I think I manage to pull off a better letter than Slade did, so I'm happy enough.

Also, as I was reading up on Schopenhauer for my last post, I came across this quote of his dealing with national pride. As is usual for the cranky German, he doesn’t have much nice to say about it, and I don’t quite agree with all its precepts. But it is a nice way to think of how those extreme ‘Australian Pride’ people might be falling back on their nationalistic views in order to make up for what seems to be an obvious faltering of their own character.

“The cheapest form of pride however is national pride. For it betrays in the one thus afflicted the lack of individual qualities of which he could be proud, while he would not otherwise reach for what he shares with so many millions. He who possesses significant personal merits will rather recognise the defects of his own nation, as he has them constantly before his eyes, most clearly. But that poor beggar who has nothing in the world of which he can be proud, latches onto the last means of being proud, the nation to which he belongs to. Thus he recovers and is now in gratitude ready to defend with hands and feet all errors and follies which are its own.” - Arthur Schopenhauer

Schopenhauer: it surprises me not that he was convicted for battering an old lady once....

It’s funny; first of all I was intent with my comments making it on to The Courier’s website simply under the articles I was commenting on, then I became excited when they were taken from the net and printed in the paper as Web Words. But now I find myself slightly annoyed that what I wrote made it straight into the paper, bypassing the electronic world I had originally resided in!

Anyhow, now I have that off my chest, I think this post has come to an end.

Let me know what you think in the comments, cheers.

MM

Just Stop the Boats

I just got SBS On Demand for my Xbox (hell yeah!), and decided to try and catch up on the series Go Back Where You Came From, as I missed its run on TV this year. I had heard good things, and while it did live up to these expectations; that's another blog post for another night. For now it reminded me of something I just need to get off my chest.

A while ago I took a screen capture of a poll at The Courier’s website that caught my fancy. Check it out below:

When I first saw this survey, I was heartened by the fact that the lower scoring options were the ones I personally don’t care for; shirking our responsibility and sending the refugees overseas to deal with them. Then I noticed the last option, the one with 47.2% of repliers selecting, and it took me aback a moment.

Just stop the boats.

It is by far the most languid option there, with no real thought put into the thing it supposedly represents. Just stop them how? It’s like people are so fed up with the refugee issue that they can’t even handle having to hear about the problem anymore. I suppose their solution to starvation in Africa would be ‘Just stop the hunger’.

I mean, I suppose I could see the option as being preferential if you were to add enough qualifiers, or sub-conditions to the proposal. ‘Just stop the boats by helping to eliminate the causes for refugees having to flee their lands in the first place’. There; I would pick that option.

Just stop the boats: Really? Like that is an option which somehow had not been tried yet.

I can imagine people responding to this survey who read through the first options, perhaps pondering where they stood on the issue. Thinking about what the most humane option was, or what responsibilities we could be said to have on a moral level to help those people who come to our country; perhaps they began to philosophise on how their own personal rights and the rights of others should be compared, and their actions tempered accordingly. But then as they reached the last option, their beleaguered brain shouts in relief “Just pick the last one so I can have a break from this already”.

Just stop the boats.

Just end unemployment.

Just fix the economy.

Just overthrow Saddam Hussein.

I can see many bad policy decisions being made by those who have to try and placate such sloppily thought through responses.

Rant complete.