Saturday, July 6, 2013

Little Pink Book

Even some on the Left are worried about the tone of the same sex marriage debate - it's all starting to smack of the Cultural Revolution:
Reasonable people can disagree on the substantive question of whether marriage law should include gay and lesbian couples. But our Cultural Revolutionaries don’t see any reasonable opponents. Instead of recognising that this is a complicated and relatively new issue, with various constituencies having legitimate concerns and the public essentially divided, the gay marriage campaigners tell us it is all very simple – either you jump on the train of history, or you’re a bigot.
I might just order a copy of The Little Red Book on Amazon, just in case...


  1. Perhaps the most important 'complication' is the fact that telling gay and lesbian couples they do not have access to the same social privileges in society as everyone else, has an undeniable logical conclusion that they are to be treated as second class citizens.

    There is an undeniable existence, still, of extreme prejudice against gay people in Ireland. This is a fact, and it inevitably colours the debate focused on by the 'normal' and 'correct-minded' (in their minds), around the issue of bringing up children etc. Making said debate impossible and unsavoury, because it is not a worthwhile dialogue in the true meaning of the word.

    Before trying to engage in such debate (that in reality is often no debate at all, rather it becomes 'right-minded' attempts to justify one's own opinion) - perhaps an eye might be cast to other cultures like Tahitian, where negative ideas about gay sexuality do not exist in the slightest, and have never existed at all. - The very idea that such a prejudice could exist, and the implications for their own children who might be different in this way, would shock them, and no doubt repulse them.

    But rather than take the essential first step to try and see gay people as brothers and sisters with precisely the same worth of social existence as themselves, instead, opponents are labelled as Maoan 'Cultural Revolutionaries' who have no conception of the complications, who say, 'either you jump on the train of history, or you’re a bigot'.

    That is no start to dialogue. The first step of dialogue is to acknowledge the worth of others. But instead, gay people are effectively asked to engage in debate as second-class citizens, whose 'difference' is tacitly understood as an aberration of human nature.

  2. Gay marriage should be as simple and undeniable a right as straight marriage. Once it involves consenting adults, that should be the end of the matter. However, those who would extend the argument to the issue of adoption, and demand that a married, male gay couple should have exactly the same rights to adopt children as a married man and woman, are on shakier ground.

    Even though a childless couple who are male and female may be unable to have children, that is the exception, not the rule. However, two men will always be biologically incapable of producing children. Given that fact, how can a demand be made that children should be provided for a male couple, primarily as an assertion of their right to equality with heterosexual couples, in all circumstances? What's more, one of the parties involved - the child - can not be said to be 'consenting' to the arrangement, by any means.

    Equal access to marriage is a right. However, equality of access to other people's children is not a right and should never be allowed to become a political football in a campaign for legal equality between adults.

  3. Agree Hugh. But I think gay couples (or singles) are well capable of entering into a reasonable debate or dialogue about it, recognising what might be missing, what extra may be provided, how it might be made work, if it couldn't possibly work, review studies, and so on. But presently there is no dialogue or genuine debate, instead there are strident assertions (on both sides) with little dialogue.


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...