The Pugnacious Irishman

Read the introduction and parts I and II of this series.

Yesterday I posted my response (part II) to my teacher-friend (part I).  I really didn’t make much of my own argument in my response; I just linked a very insightful article.  Now is when things get real interesting. Here is her response to the article:

Ok, first off Rich I’ve never acted like these arguments don’t exist- I’ve heard them, but here’s the difference: in your opinion they are ‘good’ arguments, while in my opinion they are not, in fact I think they are ridiculous excuses to back up and justify discriminating against the gay community. And yes, I did read the article.

I’m not going to apologize for using the word bigot-if you were offended, good. You should be. I realize everyone has the right to their own opinion. But to take action against a group of people who are different than you, to take their rights away is WRONG. You did that by voting Yes – you took action against a group of people, the gay community, and took their right to marry away from them.

I could go into detailed responses to all of the points made in the article you sent me, but quite frankly I dont have the time right now. I will however respond to the two that I think are the most absurd.

1. ‘Any homosexual can marry in any state of the Union and receive every one of the privileges and benefits of state-sanctioned matrimony. He just cannot marry someone of the same sex. These are rights and restrictions all citizens share equally.’

This is absurd to me. The same argument was made when interacial marriage was not allowed – they all had the right to marry, just not between races. Bigotry, plain and simple. If it was reversed Rich, and marriages were only allowed between the same sex, would heterosexuals be upset? Absolutely, and they would point out that their wanting to marry has nothing to do with having sex with someone of the opposite sex, but wanting the right to be married to them, with all of the rights that be married entails. which brings me to the second point.

2. ‘If homosexual couples face ‘unequal protection’ in this area (referring to the legal benefits as married heterosexuals regarding taxation, family leave, health care, hospital visitation, inheritance, etc), so does every other pair of unmarried citizens who have deep, loving commitments to each other. Why should gays get preferential treatment just because they are sexually involved?’

First, they dont want preferential treatment just because they are sexually involved – that statement IS ignorant. They want it for the same reasons married couples have those rights (as listed in your article). However, the difference is the unmarried citizens with ‘deep, loving commitments’ who have chosen not to get married — they had a CHOICE Rich, something you and the other 52% who voted Yes have taken away from the gay couples. They don’t get a CHOICE – according to all of you, they don’t deserve one because you don’t agree with who they have sex with. And guess where that argument stems from – two places usually: the Bible/God stating it OR people’s fears of the unknown, of the gay community.

I stand by my statements before. This is a HUMAN rights issue. You DO NOT have the right to take another Human’s rights away. How dare you.

My response is in the next post.

Also check out related posts from my own blog:

Oy

Balancing Scripture, Reason, and Experience

Tony Jones: Same-sex Blogalogue Update

Tony Jones Part III: Something I Missed

Jim Carey, Eat your Heart Out

Proposition 8 Protest Links

Rights, Shmights

But its a Religious Argument!

Like what you read? Be sure to subscribe to my RSS feed (RSS button is found at the top right in the sidebar)!