It’s no skin off my own nose, of course.
And neither is the popularity of boxing or the rise of
violence in hockey, but I disapprove of both, all the same.
Nor, for that matter, is abortion, or infanticide, or involuntary
euthanasia.
There are lots of things that are not directly any of my
concern but that, nevertheless, I abhor.
Which is not to say I would go very far out of my way to put
an end to them, even supposing I personally could do such a thing.
But it is to say that, other things equal, I would rather an end were put to them,
somehow.
Anyway, why disapprove of gay marriage?
First of all because it is, indeed, a ludicrous travesty and
a shameful mockery of something real, vastly important, and deserving of
enormous respect.
But much more importantly because it implies that gay
couples have or should have the same rights as real marrieds and that others
have or should have the same obligations toward them.
And that, I fear, though I do not know, puts children at greater
risk of all sorts of bad things that can happen to children, at the hands of
those to whose care they are delivered up.
Not a risk society should blindly take.
And yet, that is exactly what we are doing, and it is
exactly what the masters of PC demand that we do.
Imagine that.
Anyway, on the other hand, I do favor legal creation of
civil partnerships for the purpose of providing people in gay couples thus
officially sanctioned specifically enumerated rights such as, for example,
hospital visitation rights.
Rights without surprises.
And I do not favor criminalization of homosexuality per se, though it is none of the Supreme Court's business and I never rejoice when the Supremes lie their way to a result so transparently ideologically motivated.
Though, admittedly, sometimes I nevertheless prefer that to a more honest call.
Update.
To be clear, if the churches want to perform ceremonies they consider same-sex marriages, that is fine, and it would be fine for those ceremonies to have the legal force of creating an official civil union.
But it would be better if neither in that way nor in any other could persons of the same sex actually marry.
Still, as noted above, ultimately, no skin off my nose.
Rights without surprises.
And I do not favor criminalization of homosexuality per se, though it is none of the Supreme Court's business and I never rejoice when the Supremes lie their way to a result so transparently ideologically motivated.
Though, admittedly, sometimes I nevertheless prefer that to a more honest call.
Update.
To be clear, if the churches want to perform ceremonies they consider same-sex marriages, that is fine, and it would be fine for those ceremonies to have the legal force of creating an official civil union.
But it would be better if neither in that way nor in any other could persons of the same sex actually marry.
Still, as noted above, ultimately, no skin off my nose.
No comments:
Post a Comment