Yet another 'protect the children' view that cruelly excludes LGBT kids
Catholic writer Emily Stimpson says " all Catholics are morally obligated to oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage.":
To ignore how the changing legal understanding of marriage has influenced the strength of marriage as an institution is to ignore reality. And to think that we can completely untether the legal definition from the traditional definition, severing one of the last links between the two—one man, one woman—and not see the institution of marriage damaged even further is irrational at best. Delusional at worst.
It should, of course, go without saying that if same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land tomorrow, couples who understand and live the truth about marriage won’t wake up and head for the divorce courts. The marriages of those who are well-formed will be fine…for now. But the marriages of their children and grandchildren might not be—the culture having made it that much harder for parents to form their children well.
The same can be said of the marriages of those who already buy into the culture’s definition: Their wrong-headed conception of marriage as something that’s all about transitory and selfish desire will be reinforced by a law which denies that procreation is marriage’s natural and most basic end.
What strikes me, time and time again, is how little (read: zero) regard these other-side commentators show for the infinite number of LGBT people who will continue to be born into this world. Stimpson says that a culture with same-sex marriage will make it "that much harder for parents to form their children well." But what about those parents who have gay children? Why do they, the outspoken opponents of gay people's right to marry, think it's perfectly fine to weave expansive arguments and yet never once acknowledge how much harder it is to raise a healthy LGBT kid in a world that continues to tell him or her that he or she is unworthy of this, that, or the other? Moreover, why do so many people who cover this debate let the professionally "pro-family" get away with this anti-intellectual omission? In what other kind of debate is it okay to ignore the deeply affected group?!
Stimpson goes on to deny that there is bigotry attached to the sentiment. But let's get real here—what is this kind of oversight if not an obstinate belief in the superiority of one kind of person and view over another (i.e. the definition of bigotry)? It doesn't necessarily mean that any one person who holds on to such a view is personally-driven by animus, as a whole lot of people have been duped by years of bias. But if those who fight against LGBT people and our rights continue to overlook those of us who are hurt on a daily basis by this continued exclusion, then their already limited legs to stand on are going to become even fewer. And more wobbly.
comments powered by Disqus