5 December 2009


Some recent subversive arguments in support of gay marriage:

  • Let's just ban divorce. The fiction that gay marriage stultifies the value of straight marriage dissolves when presented with the choice of eliminating something that truly cheapens its value. This is similar to asking anti-abortionist how long a sentence girls who get abortions should get. Better yet, asking whether they would recommend the death sentence (abortion, in their eyes, being premeditated). If one believes that abortion is murder (and not simply a means to control women) they would without hesitation chose the common punishment for murder.
  • Let's make gay marriage only worth 3/5 of a real marriage. A nice way to emphasize the civil-rights issue that we're really dealing with.

Equally inspiring (although ultimately in vain) was Senator Diane Savino's argument in the NY State Senate [ via Reddit ]. Not a word was wasted in her speech.

I have a hopelessness with such issues, because the only argument I've heard has been a banal, illogical denunciation. There is no argument against the inane. It was pointed out recently that my frustration with the voting rights of the ignorant (though I would never suggest they be taken away) are similar to the right-wing talk show hosts that say the same thing when liberal beliefs are brought up. Does it really come down to such relativism? It reminds me of a thread on Reddit where, in response to Chomsky comparing Fox News tactics to Nazi media control, the comment was made that When a right-wing person uses a Hitler analogy: Reddit is disgusted. When a left-wing person uses a Hitler analogy: Reddit is elated. Can such an argument Ignore Chomsky substantial credentials when compared to those of the soft news entertainers on Fox, or most any, news show? The value of two opposing opinions should be measured on the reasoning that arrived at those opinions.

[ posted by sstrader on 5 December 2009 at 4:12:02 PM in Culture & Society ]