[extropy-chat] Re: White House To Seek Ban On Gay Sex On The Moon

[Adrian Tymes]

--- Christian Weisgerber <naddy at mips.inka.de> wrote:
> To put a more serious twist on this:
> 
> Social conservatives all over are up in arms against
> gay marriage.
> I realize I'm probably asking the wrong audience
> here, but can
> somebody explain to me WHY?
> 
> Supposedly gay marriage is eroding the institution
> of marriage.
> And apparently this is such an obvious truth that no
> explanation
> needs to be given.  Alas, I just don't get it.

I think I may have an explanation.  Emphasis on "may".

1. Being conservatives, they've blinded themselves to
the changes that have been going on, or at least
dismissed them.  To their judgement, marriage is still
the preferred way for a mother and a father to bond
together so they can raise the next generation of
humans.  To an extent, they're right: marriage has not
yet been totally discredited; this is, in fact, why
some gay marriages are proposed (to aid the two
parents in bonding so they may better raise adopted
children).  This is leaving aside any debate over
whether marriage is any guarantee or even the best way
towards this end, although it is the case that the
majority of people raised by a mother and a father are
not fundamentally screwed up.  They think that any
change to marriage runs the risk of devaluing it...but
again, they argue from ignorance of the significant
(or at least, of the significance of the) changes that
have been happening.

2. Some conservatives, mostly male, believe that
marriage is a socially condoned method of relegating
women to their role as child bearers and raisers, *and
that this is a good thing*.  We, of course, almost
instinctively stand against such oppression of liberty
and free choice, especially with reproductive
technology either on the horizon or already here that
would obviate the biological basis for this.  But
there are those who fundamentally disagree with us on
this.  Gay marriage, of course, makes a complete
mockery of their point of view here; they may thus
perceive an insult along with an attack on their point
of view, in a matter in which they are not in truth
directly involved in.

3. And, of course, there's the "no civil rights for
gays" crowd, who jump at the chance to write their
homophobia into law.  Some of them try to rationalize
it (especially by the above), but others think that
cruelty and oppression towards anyone definable as an
"other" is inherently justified.  They are, of course,
provably wrong and perpetuating what most of us would
call "evil" without hesitation, but that is what they
believe.