Back Breaking Mountain of an Argument
By Miguel Guanipa (03/01/06)
I don't feel threatened by two people of the same sex who love each other and want to get married. This is a standard response of progressively minded individuals who do not want to appear intolerant towards homosexual marriage. It is also a response designed to end the conversation on the subject.
If one person doesn’t feel personally threatened by the prospect of two individuals of the same sex tying the knot, then there isn’t much else to talk about, is there? Unless someone else feels threatened by it, in which case it is their problem, and not the other person’s, who is indifferent about the whole matter because it doesn’t really affect him or her anyway.
But there is more than meets the eye to this seemingly innocuous and preemptively defensive response to what is after all a very controversial subject.
Implied in this answer is the perspective from which supporters of gay marriage interpret things, which dictates that if something doesn’t presently threaten you it’s best to just leave it alone; the “let sleeping dogs lie” approach. In fact one is presumably displaying admirable tolerance in perfect apathy.
I don’t know when it became a sign of courage to refuse to hold a firm stance for or against any controversial subject, but it seems that in today’s milieu the unspoken compromises of silence and indifference actually denote firmness of conviction.
The subtle assault behind this benign response is that it implies there are only illegitimate reasons for feeling threatened by the idea of gay marriage. People who feel threatened by it are probably very intolerant, homophobes, or just plain ignorant. Conversely those who are indifferent to the practice are thought to be tolerant, wise, well informed and devoted to justice. By casting the argument in this manner, gay marriage advocates elevate themselves by demonizing and ultimately silencing the opposition, leaving no room for any kind of reasonable debate on the subject.
There is also a taint of elitism inherent to this response. If a particular social engineering experiment threatens you, then you just need to grow up and reach the moral standing of a more progressive social class that uncritically accepts the notion without prejudice. If you refuse to integrate an attitude of active compliance or at least indifference into your antiquated perspective, then perhaps a dose of social pressure and name calling by the more responsible members of society will help you reach enlightenment.
An adjacent logical inference of this response is the notion that love is the ultimate criteria for what type of behavior is accepted in civilized society. Why should anybody have the right to deny the title of husband and wife/husband to a gay couple who have chosen to consummate their union as the ultimate expression of their undying love for each other?
This is the kind of romantic approach many liberals take to social issues. One may ask: Is it ok for two people to commit adultery as long as they love each other? Is it morally acceptable if a teacher falls in love with her eighth grade student and is impregnated by him as long as they love each other? How would that kind of logic work? Even supporters of gay marriage may take a firm moral stance against this preposterous extrapolation; after all, they also have standards.
Personally, I strongly believe no one has the right to mistreat homosexuals. They should be treated with the respect and dignity we accord to all other fellow human beings.
At the same time I am strongly opposed to the idea that we can all choose our own morality as long as we do not threaten the way of life of others. If others feel threatened by our way of life we should not immediately assume that it is because of their intolerance. Additionally, if a certain social behavior does or doesn’t affect us should not be the only criteria applied to determine whether or not that behavior is morally questionable. We do not all live in our own personal moral universe; Homosexual marriage advocates included.
No Man is an Island.
Even in today’s morally pluralistic society most people are at best somewhat ambivalent about homosexual marriages. It is naive to conclude that this is mostly a stance taken by ignorant people who hate homosexuals, and intellectually dishonest to seek to marginalize sincere opponents by resorting to name calling, or branding their particular point of view as offensive and repulsively archaic.
Many of these opponents comprise a sector of culturally intimidated yet honest citizens who are opposed to homosexual marriage merely as a matter of conscience. Their conviction is rooted on values motivated by both secular and religious considerations, and they are often forced to limit their choice on the matter to two equally unsavory options. They can either continue to believe in these convictions and tolerate homosexuality as one of the many ills with which we have to live in this imperfect society, or they can flatly renounce their long held moral convictions and be forced to endorse homosexual unions as simply one among several morally acceptable alternatives to marriage.
By legalizing Homosexual marriage, the gay community is not asking people to merely tolerate their personal inclinations while retaining the option to freely oppose what they believe to be a morally abhorrent practice, but rather to obey the rule of law by recognizing and eventually endorsing it in the public square as an acceptable form of behavior.
In pursuing this venue, the gay community is trusting in the erroneous assumption that political action without the consent of the free majority is a fail-safe catalyst to cultural acceptance. But when this majority is forced to abide by such laws, without being given the option to choose whether they are beneficial to the common interests of all citizens, their freedom is in effect trampled upon by judicial tyranny.
It behooves the homosexual community to revise the concept of trampling on the conscientious objections of the opposition as a way to extol the virtue of tolerance.
Major Minority.
In this highly publicized struggle for legal recognition, homosexuals are eager to turn the tables and accord to themselves the status of a subjugated minority. But other than as a quantitative measure, homosexuals are one group to whom the term hardly applies.
Today, there is virtually no resistance to the notion that homosexuals compose a highly valued segment of contributing members of society. They enjoy public recognition from most of society’s reality defining institutions.
Cultural acceptance of homosexuality has moved rapidly from the fringe to the mainstream in a matter of few years, and it is no longer viewed as a cross to bear but rather a mark of distinction that one must flaunt valiantly in the marketplace of ideas; hence the “Pride” parades.
The reality is that homosexuals enjoy more national exposure on most national media corporations than any other sexually atypical citizenry, they comprise a block of generally moderate to high wage earning citizens, they boast of impressive entitlement benefits in the workplace, and they are an influential and established force in the political arena. One is hard pressed to plausibly argue that homosexuals in this day and age are viewed as second class citizens.
Ironically, they have failed to see that pushing the issue of homosexual marriage is turning out to be more detrimental to their cause than anticipated, since they wrongly perceived this insurgency as an act of courage from an allegedly powerless constituency. Instead, it is likely to further alienate them from the average Americans who take pride in obeying the law and zealously steer clear of thrusting their moral convictions on others by arbitrary judicial fiat.
Accordingly, it is not an act of courage for supporters of homosexual marriage to opt for the easy way out by declaring a willing surrender of their ethics to the trendiest fad of the day and simply capitulate with the notion that they are simply not threatened by this trend. True courage usually entails resistance to the complacency of the indifferent and the tyranny of the powerful.
Indeed the truly courageous citizens are those who stand against homosexual marriage, because they bravely stand against a overwhelming tide of those who opt for what they see as the route to true emancipation from restrictive and archaic traditions but is instead the sure way to anarchy and decadence by way of compromise to whatever sexual mores happen to be in vogue.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Miguel Guanipa
