And, on to the essay:
Ok, so everyone can argue for gay marriage. It's probably the single easiest position to defend; unless someone starts with the axiom "the worst thing that could happen to America is letting them fags get married", every other position leads to the conclusion that it is morally right to allow gay marriage. I'm not gonna run through the answers to every "gay marriage bad" argument, but here are some key ones that shouldn't stop you:
"Morally it's wrong" - even without pointing out that you shouldn't look to the bible for answers to everything (because people will in general categorize you as an atheist and therefore moral-less), you should argue about the immorality of government. That is, the idea that even if I individually oppose wars, or oppose taxes for myself, I should still vote for taxes and the military because the government doesn't serve my desires, it serves the public needs.
"Churches forced" - empirically denied, and, the fact that churches have nothing to do with the government's marriage. We let those god damned atheists sign their parchment; the fact that many people choose to celebrate with their bishops is irrelevant to the state
"Civil Unions" - Separate but Equal
A bunch of "marriage is for X" - we let people who can't X marry (infertile, elderly for procreation; I don't remember the other common one)
I'll add more here if they matter or if you guys want to contribute
Inevitably, the discussion will turn to the other person offering compromise. They will cry the need for "Civil Unions" (mentioned above). When you continue pressing, they will ask why you care, or they will say something like "whatever man, I disagree, but you can do what you want"; you CANNOT stop.
I'm going to take an aside here, and talk about the moral value of extremism. A lot of people think themselves "moderate" because they compromise, that is, because they are pro life but anti fag and pro gun control but anti taxes (looking at you, libertarianism). In reality, almost every political discussion is extremist; you may be extremist in a lot of different combinations, but that does not make you a moderate (ie, just because you are independent, you aren't moderate). I would argue, however, that extremism in policy making is often requisite. We can not compromise on things like gay marriage, or on things like committing to a war. Sure, we may compromise on abortion (like allowing for the first trimester baby-killing) but on a lot of things, moderation is simply not the best solution. This is especially true of civil rights; we cannot pat ourselves on the back and say "good job guys, we gave them most of their rights, everybody is happier". Until equality (in freedom) is reached, no answer is satisfactory.
Here is why I am passionate about gay marriage: because gay marriage opposition is at the heart of what is wrong with the average person; the outright rejection of love, the apathy about others' suffering, the ignorance of facts. The average person holds views that are wrong (inevitably about SOMETHING), and when those views are proven wrong, the average person keeps holding them because "it doesn't really matter", and in all reality, for most opinions it doesn't; but if love doesn't matter, what does? Why are you alive, if not to achieve (at best) perfection, like that achieved in the perfect love that marriage can facilitate, or at least to pursue happiness? I was recently talking to a girl about this; she opposed gay marriage, and I pointed out that it is morally wrong for the public to oppress other members of the public, that stopping two people from pursuing happiness together because of gender is certainly oppression. She replied, and this was after a good 20 minutes of us talking, "bleh". I was mad. The idea that she can be APATHETICALLY oppressive is at the heart of almost all dehumanization; that she can actually recognize that oppression is happening, and not only allow it to happen, but to VOTE for that oppression, all while knowing that she has no real reason!
You, as an enlightened person (and this goes out to everyone who believes in the necessity of gay marriage) are morally required to actively be a douche to people who allow this kind of oppression. Don't sink into the easy escape of friendship with whoever you happen to be talking with. Don't allow the statement (as a girl I talked to recently said) "whatever man, I disagree, but you can do what you want" to slide. The heart of gay marriage opposition is the idea that if a gay doesn't agree with what a straight person says is love, they shouldn't be allowed to do what they want (get married). Don't let mindless oppression fester; if nothing else, at least force whoever you are talking to to admit that they are oppressing the gays.
TL;DR/thesis: if you support gay marriage you should not tolerate people who don't. And I don't mean like, "don't tolerate" in the "I'm gonna break up with you/not talk to you if you don't support gay marriage", but in the sense that you should never be ok and complacent with the fact that someone you know doesn't support gay marriage. At least get them apathetically pro gay
Ok, so everyone can argue for gay marriage. It's probably the single easiest position to defend; unless someone starts with the axiom "the worst thing that could happen to America is letting them fags get married", every other position leads to the conclusion that it is morally right to allow gay marriage. I'm not gonna run through the answers to every "gay marriage bad" argument, but here are some key ones that shouldn't stop you:
"Morally it's wrong" - even without pointing out that you shouldn't look to the bible for answers to everything (because people will in general categorize you as an atheist and therefore moral-less), you should argue about the immorality of government. That is, the idea that even if I individually oppose wars, or oppose taxes for myself, I should still vote for taxes and the military because the government doesn't serve my desires, it serves the public needs.
"Churches forced" - empirically denied, and, the fact that churches have nothing to do with the government's marriage. We let those god damned atheists sign their parchment; the fact that many people choose to celebrate with their bishops is irrelevant to the state
"Civil Unions" - Separate but Equal
A bunch of "marriage is for X" - we let people who can't X marry (infertile, elderly for procreation; I don't remember the other common one)
I'll add more here if they matter or if you guys want to contribute
Inevitably, the discussion will turn to the other person offering compromise. They will cry the need for "Civil Unions" (mentioned above). When you continue pressing, they will ask why you care, or they will say something like "whatever man, I disagree, but you can do what you want"; you CANNOT stop.
I'm going to take an aside here, and talk about the moral value of extremism. A lot of people think themselves "moderate" because they compromise, that is, because they are pro life but anti fag and pro gun control but anti taxes (looking at you, libertarianism). In reality, almost every political discussion is extremist; you may be extremist in a lot of different combinations, but that does not make you a moderate (ie, just because you are independent, you aren't moderate). I would argue, however, that extremism in policy making is often requisite. We can not compromise on things like gay marriage, or on things like committing to a war. Sure, we may compromise on abortion (like allowing for the first trimester baby-killing) but on a lot of things, moderation is simply not the best solution. This is especially true of civil rights; we cannot pat ourselves on the back and say "good job guys, we gave them most of their rights, everybody is happier". Until equality (in freedom) is reached, no answer is satisfactory.
Here is why I am passionate about gay marriage: because gay marriage opposition is at the heart of what is wrong with the average person; the outright rejection of love, the apathy about others' suffering, the ignorance of facts. The average person holds views that are wrong (inevitably about SOMETHING), and when those views are proven wrong, the average person keeps holding them because "it doesn't really matter", and in all reality, for most opinions it doesn't; but if love doesn't matter, what does? Why are you alive, if not to achieve (at best) perfection, like that achieved in the perfect love that marriage can facilitate, or at least to pursue happiness? I was recently talking to a girl about this; she opposed gay marriage, and I pointed out that it is morally wrong for the public to oppress other members of the public, that stopping two people from pursuing happiness together because of gender is certainly oppression. She replied, and this was after a good 20 minutes of us talking, "bleh". I was mad. The idea that she can be APATHETICALLY oppressive is at the heart of almost all dehumanization; that she can actually recognize that oppression is happening, and not only allow it to happen, but to VOTE for that oppression, all while knowing that she has no real reason!
You, as an enlightened person (and this goes out to everyone who believes in the necessity of gay marriage) are morally required to actively be a douche to people who allow this kind of oppression. Don't sink into the easy escape of friendship with whoever you happen to be talking with. Don't allow the statement (as a girl I talked to recently said) "whatever man, I disagree, but you can do what you want" to slide. The heart of gay marriage opposition is the idea that if a gay doesn't agree with what a straight person says is love, they shouldn't be allowed to do what they want (get married). Don't let mindless oppression fester; if nothing else, at least force whoever you are talking to to admit that they are oppressing the gays.
TL;DR/thesis: if you support gay marriage you should not tolerate people who don't. And I don't mean like, "don't tolerate" in the "I'm gonna break up with you/not talk to you if you don't support gay marriage", but in the sense that you should never be ok and complacent with the fact that someone you know doesn't support gay marriage. At least get them apathetically pro gay
No comments:
Post a Comment