For a couple of years now, I've joined my local atheist/skeptic group in a number of events in support of gay marriage, usually as part of a larger gay rights event. I shall no longer do so.
I've spent most of my life indifferent to the issue. Later, I became ambivalent to it—it joining my ambivalence about the state being involved in anyone’s marriage, but that isn't germane to this discussion. I reasoned that as long as the state was involved, the law should be applied equally, and I still see things that way.
I argued that the only reason to oppose gay marriage was religious, and as far as I know, that's still true. A secular argument against gay marriage could conceivably be made. I doubt it would be a good one but it is not outside the realm of possibility.
Ultimately, my reasons were self serving.
I saw as it as a possible means to acquire allies for other secular issues and this made me feel uncomfortable. It struck me as being Dale Carnegie-ish, which despite what his followers will tell you, is fundamentally dishonest. When secularist march in gay parades and support gay causes they are largely doing so to tell those groups that religion is the motivator of the policies they oppose, which is simply false. It is just the excuse used in western democracies and the third world. There have been plenty of anti-theistic states than imprisoned gays, Cuba to name one, for all you Che shirt wearing dipshits. It is also an argument from consequences. In this case arguing that since Christian doctrine opposes homosexuality, Christianity must be false, which is, of course, bullshit.
I've come to the conclusion that my motivations were somewhat perverse. I enjoyed rubbing it in the believers faces that a straight man was standing up for a cause in which he was completely disinterested. I enjoyed a smug sense of superiority about being more enlightened than those retarded faith heads. That is what I am the most ashamed about.
What motivated this change of heart was the attempted feminist takeover of the skeptosphere. A bunch of people who are feminists or trendy leftists primarily and skeptics secondarily, thirdly or some ordinal number greater than one-ly, decided that it would be handy to marshal the resources and audience of various skeptical organizations to their causes.
They wrongly assumed that because they take an interest in skeptical issues that all who do so would share their beliefs and yet not turn a skeptical eye to their claims and arguments. This hasn't turned out well. When challenged they have reacted with vitriol comparable to to the most rabid Scientologist and rhetoric right out of the creationist playbook. Adding gay issues, regardless of their validity, only invites more of the same.
I am pro-freedom. In U.S. politics this is best represented by the Libertarian party, to whom I give money. I would argue that this stems from my skepticism. In recognizing the bounds of human knowledge, I recognize that I know what's best for my neighbor about as well as he knows what is best for me. I also recognize that in all the trade-offs people have to make in life, each of us places different values on different aspects. These include things such as immediate enjoyment vs. long term gain, comfort vs. security and opportunity, and a whole host of other things. Because of this, even if I had perfect knowledge of my neighbors situation, I still am not in a position to make decisions that best lead to his happiness, which is the most important part of any notion of well being.
There are those who claim that their "social justice" (whatever that is) positions come from their skepticism, although they never explain how. But that is an argument to be had. The point being is that as long as there is diversity of opinion within a group on tangential issues, those issues should be kept out of the groups public activities. It results in wasted energy, both that of those who wish to take over and of those who wish to stay on point.
So, my level of support of gay marriage is going back to "sure, whatever, I'll sign your petition". Should I engage in any debate on the matter, it will be as me, not me-the-skeptic nor me-the-atheist, but I'll probably be silent on the issue until I resolve my position on the states involvement in marriage at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment