Wednesday, June 12, 2013

The Opus Dei contingent weighs in - Same-sex attracted people have every right to chaste companionship

If nothing else, Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson and Robert P. George are perniciously persistent. 

Opus Dei Cross
In their latest co-authored polemic at National Review Online titled The Marriage Debate, our three Knights Templar begin with a subheading:
The marriage debate is not about homosexuality, but about marriage. Upholding the truth about marriage doesn’t deprive anyone of the joys of companionship, as many supporters of same-sex marriage suppose.
Oh please. These three Opus Deists (seriously) want to ban gay marriage because their Church disapproves of homosexuality     something that they usually refer to as "people who experience same-sex attraction." Things only go downhill from there as they torture logic to construct secular arguments for a religious objection:
The common good depends on enshrining this “conjugal view” of marriage in law; the argument for redefining marriage contradicts itself, and embracing it would harm the common good in definable ways. And the state’s reasons for recognizing marriage as a male-female union are based not on some obscure ideology or private interest, but on the human good, which reason and experience lay bare.
Robert P. George
Girgis and  Anderson are just impressionable recruits. Here we have Robert P. George, the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University, arguing for the imposition of religious doctrine on civil law while claiming otherwise.

My theory is that, at this point, George is so out of touch and insulated that his colleagues no longer bother to challenge him and if they did he would politely ignore them.

Later on, they redefine the arguments of their adversaries:
The personal fulfillment that many find in marriage has become the most prominent argument against the historical view of marriage. ... Here we sketch that argument in its most sympathetic form, so as to answer it fully and directly, sensitive to its concerns.
Biblical Polygamy
Proponents of marriage equality are not arguing against any view of marriage. Same-sex couples place enormous importance on marriage and that is what this is all about. George and company obviously struggled not to use the word "traditional" in order to attempt to portray a secular viewpoint. Yet they know perfectly well that the historical view of marriage includes one-man-and-many-women as well as concubines. Furthermore, they know that giving away the bride has a basis in historical fact as the ownership of the bride (as property) was transferred from her father to her husband. The Three Amigos wax on about the importance of marriage and its benefits and then ask the rhetorical question of why should we deny these benefits to gay couples.
But traditional marriage law denies these companionate ideals to no one. It does not discourage anyone from seeking them. Its more specific view of what makes a marriage can even liberate us for emotional intimacy in other bonds. And even if companionate bonds are impaired if deprived of public status, it does not follow that they require legal status. Remarkably, then, one of the most common and powerfully felt objections to conjugal-marriage policy is also one of the easiest to answer. The law simply has much less to do with this than people commonly suppose. We can unpack this all.
What they are repeating, in flowery and verbose language, is the NOM talking point about gays being free to love whomever they want. They cannot, and never do, unpack this all. Rather they conclude with stunning arrogance and intellectual dishonesty. Their view is that they have no equals among the less devout:
If same-sex partners’ material needs can be met, if their equal social dignity can be upheld, if various of their bonds can enjoy publicity, one might ask, what difference could it make if their relationships were legally recognized? What good do supporters of conjugal marriage hope to accomplish by withholding just that?

But to ask this is to assume, mistakenly, that the conjugal view is concerned with targeting same-sex relationships. In fact, it is the redefinition of marriage, not any particular conferral of benefits, that concerns us. What we wish to avoid is the harm this would do to the common good. Our argument — in the book, here, and elsewhere — has not been about homosexuality. In the first and last analysis, what we have debated — and defended — is marriage.
Yes. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It is circular reasoning. They can say that they are not anti-gay all they want. They can redefine their opprobrium of same-sex marriage. Nevertheless, bigotry for religious reasons is still bigotry. Let us not forget that George is on the board of the rabidly anti-gay hate group, Family Research Council.

The bottom line to all of this nonsense (and it is nonsense) is their view that gays have a right to chaste companionship. Their religion does not permit them to go any further than that.
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.