My philosophy class has a different discussion each week about controversial topics. We read a bunch of essays by a bunch of people and then the class spouts off opinions. It's pretty awesome.
I was unable to join the gay rights discussion, because I just couldn't risk the tiny amount of faith I still have in humanity on a community college philosophy class. Well, that and I had some work stuff.
I did read the essays though. The first was by John Fennis.
John Fennis is an idiot. I do not say that lightly either as I am not fond of making accusatory statements on public forums. But oh my god, he is a Professor at Oxford. D: And he is totally using these arguments.
Fennis decides that marriage can only be defined as a relationship that includes procreation AND friendship. Why don't I get to arbitrarily define institutions? :( I mean, technically ideas, things, feelings, stuff, etc. are all defined by people. So even if it were the definition of the marital institution, it still has the potential and opportunity to be redefined. Strike one dude.
Here's an awesome point: Gay and lesbians are hostile to the institution of marriage.
What about mail-order brides...shotgun weddings....my dad....? No, seriously, homosexuals could get married by the billions and it still wouldn't match the "damage" that guy has done.
Then there is the homosexuality "bad" because no "greater good" is derived from it.
WTF does that even mean?
How do we "greater good"? [It's a verb phrase now. Fennis isn't the only one who gets to make stuff up.] You know what I'm thinking "greater good" is at this point in Earth's history? Not procreating. You wanna help? Don't add to the most wasteful population ON THE PLANET! THERE ISN'T ENOUGH WATER! AGH! NEWAYZ, putting aside in-vitro fertilization, adoption, surrogates, etc., what "group" of people are going to end up doing the greatest good?
If you like that feeling of nausea, go ahead and take a gander.
|Does this deviant live on your block?|