A self-centered french-speaking thirty-something north-american male with delusions of having something to say
PodFisked!
Not being gay, or married, gay marriage is not an issue I feel particularly passionate about. My own beliefs on individual freedom simply make it a non-issue to me. But with all the noise our neighbor to the south has been making as their senate takes a break from reality to discuss the issue, I couldn't help but overhear.
Now I want to be respectful of all views and give everyone a fair hearing. And though I might disagree on the fundamentals, I generally consider myself to be sensitive to the concerns of those who take an opposing view from mine, especially when I sense that it comes from deeply held beliefs. But everything I've heard in the last few days from opponents of gay marriage just sounds absurd to me.
So gay marriage constitutes "an attack on the institution of marriage" ... I wish someone could explain to me how allowing one group to live their life in the same way as the majority threatens that same majority's ability to live that way.
Then I realize why none of what they're saying registers with me, they're not arguing from their hearts.
They're not against gay marriage, they're against homosexuality period. Only they're not saying it. When those same people argue against abortion, they're honest about the beliefs behind their opposition; they believe (quite strongly) that life begins at conception. It is very easy to understand how someone with that deeply held belief could be so passionate about the issue. It is also easy to mount a coherent argument against abortion based on that belief. After all who can be against the taking of innocent life? But on gay marriage, none (or very few) of them will actually admit that they oppose it because they believe homosexuality is a sin and a perversion that in and of itself should not be tolerated. And so they mount bizarre arguments about family, freedom (that's a strange one to throw into the mix) and institutions under threat. Of course, if they actually admitted the profound convictions behind their position, their initiative would be even more doomed to failure than it already is.
But at least they'd be honest.
Essayist & blogger extraordinaire Andrew Sullivan describes what I think of the issue much more eloquently than I ever could in what appears to be the Internet's first ever "PodFisk". Don't know what that is? Check it out
Now I want to be respectful of all views and give everyone a fair hearing. And though I might disagree on the fundamentals, I generally consider myself to be sensitive to the concerns of those who take an opposing view from mine, especially when I sense that it comes from deeply held beliefs. But everything I've heard in the last few days from opponents of gay marriage just sounds absurd to me.
So gay marriage constitutes "an attack on the institution of marriage" ... I wish someone could explain to me how allowing one group to live their life in the same way as the majority threatens that same majority's ability to live that way.
Then I realize why none of what they're saying registers with me, they're not arguing from their hearts.
They're not against gay marriage, they're against homosexuality period. Only they're not saying it. When those same people argue against abortion, they're honest about the beliefs behind their opposition; they believe (quite strongly) that life begins at conception. It is very easy to understand how someone with that deeply held belief could be so passionate about the issue. It is also easy to mount a coherent argument against abortion based on that belief. After all who can be against the taking of innocent life? But on gay marriage, none (or very few) of them will actually admit that they oppose it because they believe homosexuality is a sin and a perversion that in and of itself should not be tolerated. And so they mount bizarre arguments about family, freedom (that's a strange one to throw into the mix) and institutions under threat. Of course, if they actually admitted the profound convictions behind their position, their initiative would be even more doomed to failure than it already is.
But at least they'd be honest.
Essayist & blogger extraordinaire Andrew Sullivan describes what I think of the issue much more eloquently than I ever could in what appears to be the Internet's first ever "PodFisk". Don't know what that is? Check it out
