Wednesday, February 8, 2012

Three dishonest arguments for inequality

The expected turds have hit the turbines in religious right circles over the Prop 8 ruling by the Ninth Circuit. From Brian Brown to Tony Perkins, gaskets have been blown, people have become unhinged and organizations unglued.

What all this hyperbole seeks to hide is the fact that opponents of marriage equality do not have a rational, coherent and secular argument.

Throughout this legal battle, Family Research Council has been represented by the very Catholic Thomas More Society. It's an odd selection for an evangelical Christian organization. It may portray the influence of Robert George, an Opus Deist who serves on the Board of FRC. The More Society issued a statement after the ruling which includes:

The proponents of Proposition 8 advanced multiple reasons in support of the initiative, that reserving marriage to opposite-sex couples is reasonably related to the State's legitimate interests in responsible procreation; in providing the benefits of parenting by both a mother and a father; and in proceeding cautiously in changing a basic social institution.
They make three illegitimate arguments:
  1. That the state has a valid interest in "responsible procreation" which is served by Proposition 8. While "responsible procreation" remains undefined, there is no rational explanation of how gays having a marriage, in contrast to a civil union, has even the remotest connection to the sex habits of heterosexual couples. Does that alter the frequency, intensity or schedule of copulation? If anything this non sequitur only serves to prove that there isn't even a tenuous causal relationship between gays marrying and the lives of heterosexual couples.
  2. That the state has an interest in the benefits of parenting by a mother and a father. Regardless of the status of marriage equality, the same opposite sex couples will unite in marriage, crank out the same kids and sue for the same divorces resulting in the same custody arrangements. Parenting is affected by the fact that a staggering 75% of traditional marriages in California end in divorce. That goes back a decade. Blame the gays? Gays adopt children with no mother and no father. They have no unplanned children. Aside from the fact that all of the literature, without exception, concludes that gay parents are at least as competent as raising children as their heterosexual counterparts, what is the connection between gay marriage and traditional parenting? There is none.
  3. That the state has an interest in proceeding cautiously. Why? This has absolutely no effect on existing traditional marriages. The children of gay parents deserve married parents. What is the argument? Other than proposing fear, what is the argument?
If all this crap sounds tediously familiar, that's because it is. These are the same Robert George talking points that National Organization for Marriage has been using for years. George is supposed to be a great thinker and this is the best that he can do? It's insulting to our collective intelligence.

Making intellectually dishonest arguments to advance inequality is bigotry per se.
Enhanced by Zemanta

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be civil and do NOT link to anti-gay sites!

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.