Is there any anti-Same Sex Marriage argument that is not homophobic?
Admittedly, it may prove to have been a mistake. Following the ‘other side’ on twitter, while often enlightening, even titillating, too frequently proves merely soul stripping.
Watching torrents of logic break on the dark skerries of ideological entrenchment is mainlining despair. Why do it?
Well, its taught me that if you are looking for ammunition to take the other side down with, you will find it. But, more importantly, if you’re honest about trying to win them over, it can give you a much better idea about how to do so.
Here’s what the experience has helped me to see regarding the debate on SSM.
To the Left, the terrain appears familiar. Contemporary, self-identifying members of the Right are in a pickle. Their predecessors could dismiss concerns over Same Sex Marriage blithely aware that prevailing homophobia would serve as a bulwark against any agitation that might undermine sacred tradition. The present generation of heel draggers can not be seen to resort to shallow prejudice so readily, so instead, opposition to a parity of esteem for gay love is heard as a mangle of casuistry.
Quickly intuiting underlying repugnance at ‘the homosexual act’, well meaning liberals, seeking to cut through the sophist ruse, label the business ‘homophobic’ and self-evidently so.
Yet, is there a case to answer for proponents of the progressive agenda (pro-choice advocates and secularists to be included here)? How often is the opportunity to win over a conservative with argument scorned in favour of venting frustration with an intransigent and irrational status quo? Having had homophobia recognised for the filthy bigotry it is (as repugnant to the clear thinking as the prospect of being compelled by law to attend a homosexual mega-orgy is to the homophobic), does liberal hair-trigger homophobia-phobia, with its primitive trump card, opponent-discrediting ‘homophobe’ tag, ape the conservative toolbox of blacklisting to an uncomfortable extent?
Sophisticated opponents of SSM certainly reject the term as a slur and in turn vilify the Left’s efforts to demonise their project with words of intolerance.
So, to the question: is there an anti-SSM argument that is not homophobic?
Though the answer must certainly be ‘Yes’- we shall examine a union of uncomfortable bedfellows: utilitarianism and traditionalism- it is a line of reasoning which followed to its conclusion is not exactly a comfortable position from which to argue the merits of hetero-privilege.
Among the twitterati encountered, their argument has it that the heterosexual partnership is unique in its child making and child rearing qualities and is on this basis worthy of elevation. Such utility as a child rearing arrangement is understood to be indicative of the wisdom of traditions and a pillar on which rests the current magnificence of civilisation.
However, to be consistent with this and impervious to the charge of homophobia, a number of views are also to be expected by implication.
Being convinced of the essential connection between matrimony and parenting, such proponents are required, under pain of contradiction, to be equally dismissive of non child-raising heterosexual marriages, especially in the case of infertility. In fact, if consistency is to be truly observed, we should expect a demand for medical evidence of potency, or at least written intention of adoption before bestowing married status; gender being not the only inhibition to motherhood and fatherhood.
We should expect calls for healthy heterosexuals who obtain society’s matrimonial blessing but spurn having children to be stripped of the honour.
We should expect un-married, child-rearing couples and single parents to be considered sub-optimal arrangements and taken as explicit instances of parental failure and in breach of their children’s entitlements.
We should expect arguments in favour of strict gender roles, given that insistence on motherhood and fatherhood implies the existence of gender exclusive qualities.
Such arguments, lest I be proved wrong, are unmade, or if made, they are not explicit. And for instances for any such scenarios outlined above we would expect the level of censure to be laced with the language of suspicion and outrage with which the likes of Irish journalist John Waters treats ‘the gay agenda’. It is telling that this is not so.
It proves instructive to examine a specific case .
With The Iona Institute, which presents itself as leading the campaign in Ireland to defend the privilege of the traditional family on the utilitarian grounds that doing so protects a child’s rights to a mother and a father, we curiously notice little or no further work on behalf of children (religious instruction in schools does not count, to say the very least).
Credit for infographic to @pantibliss
Such defenders of children’s rights, in the case of adoption, are not advocating assessing potential parents for suitability beyond their gender specifications. IQ, income, level of education, emotional intelligence etc. etc. these are factors which have a real bearing on children’s life outcomes yet Iona is curiously quiet on the child’s right to parenting by people with, for example, IQs at least one standard deviation above the mean.
It seems Iona’s parental idealism extends merely to the dubious assertion that a representative of both genders ought to have a hand in childrearing. In short, the inconsistencies in their attempts at secular reasoning betray thinking which is plainly circumscribed by the narrow parameters of 20th Century Christianity. Their notions regarding ‘children’s rights’, constitute a transparent excuse to further a religious agenda. The tragically inept or wilful misreading of science will therefore come as no surprise.
The assumption that both mother and father together exclusively represent the most responsible arrangement in which to develop a young life is unsupported by peer-reviewed rational enquiry.
Even the secular anti-SSM argument which misreads both the science and the venn diagrams regarding matrimony and parenthood still must contend with the core contradiction of its misguided, traditionalist utilitarianism. In all its concern for children, it ensures Aristotelian Eudaimonia remain the preserve of children’s futures, never grown children’s presents. Ensuring Gay children go without the same prospects for fulfilment as their straight peers is clearly absurdly inconsistent with any claims of concern for their wellbeing.
To finish,
Admitting infertile heterosexuals within the institution of marriage yet opposing SSM on parental grounds is inconsistent. If we allow the circumstance of being merely akin in gender to those who breed to be the prime factor in determining access to higher societal esteem for a couple’s love, then we find ourselves confronted with an absurdity.
Championing children’s rights concerning parental gender, yet remaining silent on the salient factors of parental quality is an absurdity.
Implying gender specific roles within the family yet remaining silent on gender roles in a broader context, though politically well advised, is either hypocrisy or an absurdity.
Thus we may well permit ourselves to understand such inconsistencies with our ‘Yes’ answer as indicative of mere casuistry.
Misinformed by tradition, as we often are, unlucky in education, as the religious always are, a proponent of hetero-exclusive marriage is either a hypocritical buffoon or an archly deceptive homophobe, or both. Though we may plead clemency for the disadvantaged on the basis that by handing oneself whole to a church in which an individual merely becomes homophobic by proxy, we can certainly expect higher standards from those gifted with public access.
Are the Catholic Church’s teachings homophobic? That is beyond doubt. Are their believers homophobic? By definition, yes. Is secular, non-fascist opposition to SSM credible? No.
This is not to say that progressives are without blame in this debate. It is clear that the previous paragraph may prove highly insulting to a large section of Irish society. Homophobia buried in religious belief, like criminal activity among the poor is a story as much of victimhood as of moral failure. Understanding those who have not been taught to think free of bias (often the very same people busy ensuring bias is taught) might prove more effective in winning over the other side.
Dismissing them while pleading for understanding on behalf of the poor, petty thief or heroin addict is a liberal contradiction. Petty criminals rarely direct the destiny of the nation, but given the opportunity the biased will- this is all the more proof of the importance of winning them over.
A mistake following the Right on twitter it may well have been, but so far it’s been an instructive one.
Improper Order 