Here is my latest ranting, this time (loosely) on the topic of gay marriage. Let me know what you think ...
Conservatives love to praise themselves for being in touch with human nature. But when homosexuality is concerned, the realism goes out the window. All of a sudden, they start obsessing over the supposed dangers that homosexuality poses, none of them at all tangible. Their most ridiculous argument against gay marriage is that homosexual parents harm their children’s psychosexual development. Discounting a lack of compelling evidence, this contradicts their support of marriage in almost all cases, no matter how heinous the circumstances. If a husband abuses his wife, no big deal. If they cheat on each other, sure it’s a sin, but still, the marriage must go on. Hell, even verbal arguments can be immensely damaging. Yet, for some reason, being “exposed” to a loving, committed homosexual couple is prohibitively damaging. Even if it’s true that a traditional heterosexual marriage is the best thing for a child’s development (and this is by no means as certain as gay marriage opponent would have you believe), since when do we live in an ideal world? Divorce is rampant, which social conservatives claim is another sign of society’s impending descent into cultural ruin, yet the prospect of less broken homes is somehow superceded by the possibility that heterosexual marriages might be better for children? And also, how many traditional couples are actually in line with social conservatives’ rigid conception of gender roles. I don’t deny that these gender roles, like all stereotypes, could have some basis in reality. Perhaps there is a certain broad pattern of interaction in heterosexual couples that could influence a child’s development (although family structures in matriarchal societies pose a strong argument to the contrary). But in today’s society, these standards barely apply. Social conservatives highly overestimate the unique characteristics of paternal and maternal parenting roles. Before feminism, these roles may have been more prevalent, but that was for social, not biological reasons. If societal norms dictate a certain child-rearing blueprint, then reality will naturally reflect it to some extent. All of this suggests that even if the social conservatives assertions regarding unique maternal and paternal roles have a grain of truth to them, there is no reason why they should dwarf all other considerations in assessing the value of a marriage.
Conservatives love to praise themselves for being in touch with human nature. But when homosexuality is concerned, the realism goes out the window. All of a sudden, they start obsessing over the supposed dangers that homosexuality poses, none of them at all tangible. Their most ridiculous argument against gay marriage is that homosexual parents harm their children’s psychosexual development. Discounting a lack of compelling evidence, this contradicts their support of marriage in almost all cases, no matter how heinous the circumstances. If a husband abuses his wife, no big deal. If they cheat on each other, sure it’s a sin, but still, the marriage must go on. Hell, even verbal arguments can be immensely damaging. Yet, for some reason, being “exposed” to a loving, committed homosexual couple is prohibitively damaging. Even if it’s true that a traditional heterosexual marriage is the best thing for a child’s development (and this is by no means as certain as gay marriage opponent would have you believe), since when do we live in an ideal world? Divorce is rampant, which social conservatives claim is another sign of society’s impending descent into cultural ruin, yet the prospect of less broken homes is somehow superceded by the possibility that heterosexual marriages might be better for children? And also, how many traditional couples are actually in line with social conservatives’ rigid conception of gender roles. I don’t deny that these gender roles, like all stereotypes, could have some basis in reality. Perhaps there is a certain broad pattern of interaction in heterosexual couples that could influence a child’s development (although family structures in matriarchal societies pose a strong argument to the contrary). But in today’s society, these standards barely apply. Social conservatives highly overestimate the unique characteristics of paternal and maternal parenting roles. Before feminism, these roles may have been more prevalent, but that was for social, not biological reasons. If societal norms dictate a certain child-rearing blueprint, then reality will naturally reflect it to some extent. All of this suggests that even if the social conservatives assertions regarding unique maternal and paternal roles have a grain of truth to them, there is no reason why they should dwarf all other considerations in assessing the value of a marriage.