A brief digression...

In an essay mostly about Muslim legislators and sharia law, the author wrote:

The FederalistThe abortion debate concerns the very definition of life; the issues surrounding homosexuality give rise to fundamental questions about sexual and marital freedom, and perhaps even whether there is such a thing as truly private choices

This is fundamentally mistaken and wrongheaded, in both cases illustrating how issues that should not be contentious are twisted so that they become divisive.

Abortion is not about the definition of life. Life begins at conception. This is common sense and it is unambiguously correct by the scientific definition of life. No one knowledgeable argues that the baby is not alive. They argue that it is less than fully human (debating whether it has a heartbeat, whether it can feel pain, whether it is a separate organism or a "parasite", and so forth) in order to claim that the mother's convenience outweighs the rights of the not-yet-human life. The debate about "life" is a distraction into propaganda. It's really a debate about humanity, and whether it is morally acceptable to kill one human for the convenience of another. But that's a losing argument, hence the intense effort to deflect into a different, more winnable debate.

Similarly the debate about "sexual and marital freedom". No one seriously disputes the right of people so inclined to have sex with other consenting adults of either gender. No one seriously debates the right of people to form long-term cohabitation relationships with those of the same gender.

What is debated are legal questions. Can two men or two women marry each other and force other members of society to give them the legal benefits of marriage? Can they force someone to bake them a wedding cake? Give them health insurance under the terms offered to heterosexual couples? Have inheritance or visitation rights similarly to married heterosexual couples?

No one wants to have that debate because "It's complicated". So they demand the simple answer: gay marriage, yes or no, all the details avoided... or rather, included by implication in yes, rather than discussed. Oh, and rather than pass laws in 50 states to do this the right way... get a case to the Supreme Court, which has no legislative power, to force the issue without bothering to convince the population.

This entry was published Fri Apr 26 08:47:31 CDT 2019 by TriggerFinger and last updated 2019-04-26 08:47:31.0. [Tweet]

comments powered by Disqus

Subscribe to Atom Feed

I am not a lawyer, and nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice.

This site is run on custom blog software and is being actively developed. Please be forgiving of errors.

This website is an Amazon affiliate and will receive financial compensation for products purchased from Amazon through links on this site.