Friday, March 22, 2013

Opponents of gay marriage forced to articulate the sharp edges in their positions

The New York Times has several recent stories about the continuation of opposition to gay marriage among some parts of the conservative community, such as with this recent story Friday by Sheryl Gay Stohlberg about Brian Brown and the National Organization for Marriage, story link here

An earlier story Thursday by Ashley Parker had given more details. A Mr. Anderson of the Heritage Foundation is quoted “In redefining marriage to include same-sex couples, what youy’re doing is you’re excluding the norm of sexual complementarity. Once you exclude that norm, the three other norms – which are monogamy, sexual exclusivity and permanency – become optional as well.”

Opponents of gay marriage say they are not bigots and do not wish homosexuals ill will.  But there are problems of logical contradiction.  Their arguments suggest that the actual marriage experience of heterosexuals is lessened and less attractive unless it is socially privileged.  That will inevitably cause situations where those who don’t marry legally must make personal sacrifices to support those who do.  This becomes more likely as society becomes more connected or “reconciled” (as by the Internet) and as caregiving needs outside those of raising children – eldercare – increase steeply.  There is also a disturbing philosophical idea that some aspects of life should not be viewed as options for personal choice and will fall on individuals beyond their ability to control.  For starters, one cannot choose gender, or the inclination to feel any particular attraction.   

No comments: