When/If you post a comment (and I hope you will!), be sure to put in a URL --- even if you just use mine (http://alan.batie.org/) --- if you don't, your email address will get put in as a link on your name, and you'll suddenly find yourself on Spam Central. Not my doing, I promise you! They scan websites for embedded email addresses. You've been warned --- I really don't wish spam on anyone (well, ok, maybe the spammers themselves)!
Finally, if you want to be notified when I post the this blog, signup on the lemmings mailing list.
I did just make it to Senater Morse's Town Hall on Civil Unions tonight. It was an overflow crowd that appeared to me to be about 2/3 in favor and 1/3 opposed. Here are my responses to a few of the points raised in opposition:
Choice or Biology:
It doesn't matter one iota whether it's choice or not. The fact is that people are highly variable: for some it is a "choice", in that they are attracted to both sexes. For many, it's not, but in any case, if you are in a relationship now, or have been, did you *choose* who you fell in love with, or were even just attracted to? For most people, something just clicked and that was it. But if you believe in Freedom, it doesn't matter.
Love:
Someone actually had the audacity to claim that same-sex love wasn't real love. I have no clue what they think real love is, but I'm glad I'm not that narrow minded. Regardless though, does anyone really want anyone else trying to tell them whether or not they're really in love? Much less the *government*?
What's best for the children:
Despite much evidence to the contrary, many still believe that a traditional "nuclear" family is better than a family with same-sex parents. Never the less, those families *do* exist. Their solution is to make life even *harder* for these families? There is very broken logic here. And if they want to get into having government enforce who makes good parents or not, well, that is an extremely frightening path indeed, and least of all for gay and lesbian parents.
Freedom and tolerance:
Obviously, the limit of freedom is when you start to interfere with someone else's freedom. Without isolating yourself entirely, that "interference" cannot include mere exposure to differences. One of the most common objections I've heard when this subject comes up is "if we allow that, then we have to allow pedophilia etc". Are people *really* that clueless about what Freedom really means? Actually, in this case, I have to believe it's willful ignorance, but I'll dress it anyhow: pedophilia and the other strawmen raised are obviously a violation of the child's freedom (or someone else's if not pedophilia), and are not valid exercises of freedom.
I don't want my children exposed to that:
There are a lot of things many parents try to shield their children from. Doing so usually has the opposite of the intended effect (there's nothing more desirable than the forbidden fruit), though I've never understood the desire to shield children from love. The fact is though is that it's the perfect opportunity to teach your children your values. They're going to grow up in a diverse world unless we end up with a very draconian future. The sooner you start teaching them to deal with it, the longer you'll have to work with them imparting your values. Obviously, I hope you teach them to be loving and accepting, but even if not, the point is still valid.
Rights vs Responsibility:
Someone mentioned that everyone wants rights, but no one wants responsibility. All to true, but then why is he arguing against civil unions, in which the rights *do* come with attached responsibility?
Reverse Discrimination and Hate:
Someone commented that they feel discriminated against because of their conservative values. I'm sorry to hear that, but "welcome to the club". The way to fight that is not to try to keep others from being treated equally, but the reverse: work for true equality and freedom. The reason that you feel hated is because the most visible people with your values have done their damndest to oppress everyone who disagrees with them. I grew up mildly religious, and even briefly felt strongly religious. I know that the vast majority of religious people are really nice, well meaning people.
But the more and more I see of what religious values mean in practice, their actual effect on the world as driven by the most vocal followers: the narrow mindedness, the psychological damage done to people, the violence it incites --- the more I realize that I couldn't have come up with a more effective tool of the devil than organized religion. It teaches people to be sheep and follow others because they say so or someone once said so, rather than to think about it and follow the teachings because they're *right*. I'm sorry, but we've learned how to cook pork and shellfish in the intervening millenia, and we've realized that women can make a valuable contribution to the world besides increasing the population. At least many of us have.
That said, I practice what *I* preach: if you want to grow a long beard and not eat pork, if your wife wants to be the obedient, subserviant, servant of the house, you should no more be discriminated against than should a same-sex couple or a Morman clan. If you want a public religious display, make sure that *all* religions (and the anti-religious) have the right to put up displays as well. If you want to pray in public places, make sure that those who want to may make the prayers of their own choosing, that it is not disruptive or imposed on those who don't want to do it at all.
In short, practice freedom and equality, and *everyone* wins.