Rainbow flag flapping in the wind with blue sk...

I am all fine and good with people expressing their opinion, but I do have a problem with the misrepresentation of philosophy or blatant ignorance of the originating thoughts of concept. Don't call something secular when it clearly isn't, especially if it is laden with religiously supported non-sense. Gay marriage is in the best interest of equality for all, not just for the majority.

I have spent a lot of time educating myself on social issues from sexism and racism, to quantum science and I stumbled on to this pearl of a piece (and by pearl I mean that it made me scratch my head and say “WTF Mate”)  I see the common arguments of opponents of gay marriage, and I see them often and quite frankly they all stink.  Furthermore, there is a concentrated effort going on in the religious right to create reason why our government should deny rights and protections to same-sex couples.  Most of the sources this person sites are from very religiously motivated organizations that all the while claim to be secular when they are not.  When I see Family, Traditional, or other overarching titles speaking of “defense of marriage” I immediately know that it’s an organization that is supported by the religious conservatives, which you can prove, and it is the common place of the religious right.  In find that this kind of thought proliferates on itself and I will show why.

There are many reason why I feel denying right to marry or to some sort of legal equal to such is wrong.  One is that I think that is up to society to decide what marriage means just not one privileged group.  Second, I feel that rights shouldn’t be barred from anyone one group because of the majority.  And finally, I feel that sexual orientation isn’t changeable any more than gender identity and thus discriminatory to deny rights on that basis.  This community isn’t asking to be given unequal rights, but asking for the same rights as any normal person would be given.  Commonly this fact is obscured or misconstrued that somehow they’re already have equal rights but are asking for more and it’s not true.  The rights of women still aren’t even ensured in the constitution, but rather by court precedence.  Look it up.  Our knowledge of this issue should reflect the truth to evaluate the nature of this need, and the stories and tribulations of those who suffer without this right should be all that is needed to grant it.  Heteronormative culture tends to overlook its own flaws for the sake of scrutinizing those who don’t have a choice to “play along”.

Oppression shouldn't have to look like this to be recognized. This is one way how Iran deals with homosexuality, and while extreme it demonstrates the Abrahamic religious oppression of gays and lesbians everywhere.

This blog is filled with the most skewed, and seemingly made up bunch of foolhardiness I have ever seen congregated in one place before.  Like the “Nexus of False Prejudgment” fell into someone’s lap and they wrote about it.  It’s not the author is particularly bigoted, or necessary prejudiced at face value but many of the people and sources he sighted aren’t secular, and are subject to intrinsically high levels of bias.  He’s likely one of the brain washed masses whose been told ‘the gay’ is bad, and give pseudoscience to prove it and in his mind it remains unchallenged.  It’s oppressive logic that drives these lines of thought.  With more and more people moving away from the religious right in their stance on same-sex marriage as well as the nature of homosexuality, and the equal rights concept; this becomes a move to redirect efforts that failed in one arena to another.  Many of his sources are biased, outdated or suffer the all to classic sample size error and user bias error.  Bold faced, it’s a one-sided debate that doesn’t take a fair and balanced sample of all available data, opinions or evidence.

It’s a common debate tactic, but also a flawed one.

Original Article: Wintery Knight:  A secular case against gay marriage

Below is my comment about his blog.

Note: the pictures and captions weren’t part of the original reply.  Additionally you may not find my comment on his word press because there is a high likelihood he moderates out anything that disagrees with his position.

Every single supporting argument reflects the religious right’s bias about same-sex marriage and the seeks to through circular means to prove the ‘perceived’ moral, social and philosophical threat of homosexuality to society and by extension subjectively all concepts perceived as “alternative lifestyles”.

Oppressive Logic:

Internalized oppression is ever much as bad as oppression in which a person can actually begin to oppress people of the group in which they live. Regardless of its causes it's wrong.

If you oppress a group hard and long enough you will eventually engender feelings of resentment, self loathing, social rebellion, depression, internalized oppression, desperation and create resultant ripple effects that resonates throughout the oppressed group which you can then use to prove why these people aren’t entitled to the same considerations as the rest of civil society.  You can then support this logic through circular means by continued denial of the injustice (as you demonstrated through said oppression) which insures a renewing source of conflict, denigration, and desperation from the oppressed group which starts the cycle all over again.

Any boss who discriminates against a woman for being a woman should be fired, because the woman can’t be anything but a woman.  Our country was founded on the principles of equality, and our founding fathers believed in protecting the rights of each person, not just the majority.  However, if some boss discriminated against a homosexual, or a transsexual in many places he could get away with it either completely or with a little political finagling.  Why?  Because people believe it’s a choice, when it really isn’t.  All logical attempts, outside of claims made my the religious right, to change sexuality or gender identity have “FAILED”.  They keep those traits for their entire lifetime whether they are able to repress them or not.

Lest not forget what religiously motivated mindsets are capable of. While many could argue that this particular article doesn't speak much about religion the overtones of religiously motivated discrimination are clear. In our culture you can't ignore the effect that Abrahamic cultures have on American perception even when said concepts claim to be secular. It is the dangers of religious intolerance often forgotten or repressed in conservative dogma.

Additionally, success is highly questionable as it is all religiously motivated by feelings of moral conflict with ones innate traits and ones religion.  You’d never be able to pull the wool like that on someone who isn’t so motivated.  Additionally, reparative therapy is dangerous at best.  It is a persistent and intrinsic quality and because of the motivations of the more conservative and religiously motivated ideologies any and all scientific, and medical evidences speaking to this vary nature of these conditions is ignored.  It goes against the bible there for these “science facts are evil”.  It’s a culture of ignorance for which there is “NO” excuse.

Also, there are as many statistics that show same-sex marriages are no less stable, loving, nor their children any less adjusted than heterosexual marriages.  Homosexuals are no less inclined to sexual deviancy than heterosexuals, so any moral argument you make against gay marriage is null.  Many of these stereotypes are made up, myths used to publish and promote prejudice.

Many things are protected from discrimination in our country like race, religion, creed, gender (not actually in the constitution by the way), or national origin.  While 3 of those are unchangeable two of them are; and while I’d argue that homosexuality and transsexuality are immutable even if they weren’t it wouldn’t be a valid argument for not including rights.  See the problem lies in the fact that it’s not about the need for granting such rights for same-sex marriage as well as constitutional protections for women, homosexuals and transsexuals, it’s about the oppression of the majority rule which is trying to deny, even stand up laws to prevent rights from being given.  The condition of the current state of affairs is unjust because it causes unnecessary suffering to groups that fall outside of the concept of “heteronormativity”.

The argument against Gay Marriage doesn't hold water when you really look at the meat and potatoes of it. If it's about having a family and children many women and men are infertile for reasons beyond their control. Does this mean that they should somehow be denied marriage because they can have a family with "traditional biology"? It's a flawed concept and any intelligent person should be able to see right through it.

These groups have no more control over changing their sexualities, genders, beliefs and needs than you do as people and have the right to be equal in the eyes of the law, and they aren’t asking for an exception to the law but inclusion in the law.  The majority of Americans aren’t homosexual or transsexual, so for them the standard works for them.  Why would you want to change something that works in your favor after-all.  However, our country was not founded on the premise of ensuring the rights of the majority, but of all people, and to deny this is to engage in the tyranny of the majority which is wrong on all counts.  This is what our founding fathers believed in, and you should to.  Our founding fathers created this nation to give equal rights to its citizens not erect laws or precedence to take them away.

The statistics in your study are biased not only for this sort of oppressive logic, but because of other biasing and sampling errors that come from the fact that non-heteronormative people make up less than 20% of the population (and that is an optimistic figure).  None of your references come from a strictly secular viewpoint, many are supported monetarily by the religious right, thus making your secular case decidedly non-secular, or religious conservative.  Most of your statistics are questionable as are the motivations of their proponents, and if your statistics were fact,  if even some of those from a credible sources (though outdated) are correct your assessment of the cause, and factors surrounding them is
is an offhanded and one-sided one.  As an oppressed minority that society doesn’t grant equals rights to it can cause duress, which gives rise to the behaviors your are categorically against.  Refer back to Oppressive logic.  Even outside the arena of law, said minorities are overtly oppressed, beaten, persecuted, murdered, denied employment, equal wages, denied housing and other equal treatment by many members of society.

Western thought is permeated with religious dogma whether you realize this or not. It's important to critical thought that we can see and show where this concept comes from. Missing it only furthers oppression because how can you stop it if you don't know what started it?

This sort of chain needs to stop, because it defies good sense, and moral equity.  Using outdated religious contexts to govern morality is problematic and it a core philosophy of both Western Thought, and Conservative Ideology whether or not their supporters are of a Judeo-Christian religion or not.  As mentioned above the fact that these conditions are not readily mutable for social integration it become necessary to consider exceptions for those who are exceptional.  It is a principle of fairness, ethics and justice when coupled appropriately.  You wouldn’t expect a man with no legs to walk would you?  Then why do you expect a man who has no attraction to women to be attracted to them?  Your (heteronormative people) sexualities and genders can’t change why should others?  You’d suffer the same kind of damage if someone tried to change you, as non-heteronormative people do when they try to change them.

Consider this though while you think about this concept, many people out there really are bigoted and hateful and will read this blog and applaud you like little children.  They then go out and spread the word, creating false rules of morality and thus oppression from the things you have dictated here as fact when this can not be accurately verified, and the sources are questionably biased.  Think about the people this kind of logic is oppressing and the kind of damage you could be doing when using such arguments peddled as fact, without first considering all sides, the nature of your source, the immutability of the states of being of the oppressed, or the ramifications of your position.  You might be able to understand the difference, but others may not.  However, it is your right to believe as you see fit, and I respect that right.  Don’t stand on the shoulders of others to prove your personal beliefs without giving fair trial to the other side.  You may not be directly responsible for this oppression, but you are of a privileged group and you are responsible for what you say.  My main point aside from the oppression of homosexuals is that your perspective is not secular, which researching the backgrounds of your sources can prove.

I attached a link to the article at the top of my comment, so you can to read and think for yourself on the issue.  I invite free thought.  And if anyone has any data contradicting the article please leave a comment and include it.  I have probably read a bunch of them by now, but I always enjoy more.  You’ll also notice more blatant religiously motivated themes on some people’s blog sites about this issue, so I’d argue that the two are inextricably linked.  Anyhow tell me what you think and I hope you enjoyed the commentary by me.  I also urge allopressed sexual and gender minorities continue to write about this issue to keep the religiously motivated conservatives from burying us in the malaise of stagnated moral concept.  Attached is a poll to get a temperature on how people feel about this issue.

Advertisements