– posted by thehim
It’s long been quite entertaining watching Jonathan continue to figure out ways to marry his small government rhetoric with his opposition to gay marriage. Here’s his latest attempt at reconciling the irreconcilable:
The National Review Online does a tremendous job of saying what I’ve been trying to say in terms that are well-understood.
The link is here, and it’s as stupid as you’d expect it to be.
They laid out the case for traditional marriage above or at the exclusion of homosexual marriage.
And they failed.
They continue to defend that case noting that no one has attempted a counter-argument.
Actually, no. They acknowledged that several people attempted counter-arguments, but they appeared to have some difficulty in understanding them.
The core of the argument is simply this. Children are best with their biological parents, and the ideal situation is one where the parents love each other and their children.
And that’s not an argument to deny homosexuals the right to marry. It’s a complete non-sequitur.
We have an interest as a society and as a government to see that children are put into this ideal situation wherever possible.
This may be true, but it has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not homosexuals can marry each other.
Since the benefit of the child at stake, the wills of the parents are irrelevant.
This isn’t even in the ballpark of being relevant.
Their rights end where the children’s rights begin.
And getting colder.
Of those two facts, and they are facts recorded by scientific observation and practical experience, homosexual marriage can only attempt to provide only one piece at the exclusion of the other.
How exactly is a homosexual couple who adopts a child any different from a heterosexual couple who adopts a child?
That piece is provided very weakly, given how committed homosexual couples behave in real life.
I’ll remember this next time Jonathan tries to claim he’s not a prejudiced bigot.
Even granting them the second fact, there remains the first.
And this is true for foster parents and couples who adopt.
Homosexual marriage advocates can only argue that allowing homosexual marriage won’t hurt marriage as an institution.
And unless someone can provide evidence that it does, marriage equality advocates are right.
What evidence they have for this is weak.
And the evidence that you have for the opposite is non-existent.
However, this is a weak argument.
They need to establish truth that homosexual marriage will benefit children more than they are being helped today with a system that encourages only traditional marriage.
Actually, they don’t, no more than advocates of interracial marriage had to prove the same thing.
This cannot be shown, and so the children are never mentioned as part of their arguments.
Children are never mentioned as part of their arguments for a very important reason. It’s irrelevant to why gay marriage should be legal.