Thursday, June 02, 2016

The inconsistency of the Left - featured comment

From Jim Rose:

"One of the oddities of the 21st-century left is if you are gay, your life is incomplete unless you can marry and have children. If you suggest others, in particular parents, have an incomplete life if they do not marry, you are some sort of throwback."
I did not oppose same-sex marriage. I think marriage is a great institution. But it is odd how hard the left fought for gay inclusion and yet, when you put up data that shows de facto relationships are far less stable than marriages and therefore contribute more to child poverty, their defence of cohabiting as equal to marriage is strident.


Anonymous said...

Another left meme that I thought was interesting today was the suicide research which totally failed to even mention the role of unstable family life (whether that of the parents or of the young person themselves) was found to play in the rise of youth suicide in the 1990s.

You would have thought at very least the coincidence of highly unstable family lives for young Maori and their high suicide rate would have rated a mentioned. But no - it doesn't fit the meme that it is all about deprivation!

Anonymous said...

Looking back at the gay attitude to marriage over the years one could argue that the gay activist desire was to undermine marriage (which is why I was sceptical about the pleading for gay marriage) and eventually the family unit as it then was. There were plenty of quotes from the 70's floating about when gay marriage was mooted. On that basis the "left" are being consistent as the end justifies the means.


Brendan McNeill said...

Gay Marriage was never about marriage in any meaningful sense, but about the normalisation of homosexuality.

Today without any hint of irony we have the same people telling us that sexual orientation is fixed at birth (and is therefore not a choice) but gender is not fixed at birth, (and is therefore what ever I choose).

JC said...

"their defence of cohabiting as equal to marriage is strident."

Whether its homosexuality, obesity or other divergence there usually are a number of steps or stages to them.. like survive it, explain it, normalise it and protect it. The health profession can help you survive obesity, shrinks can help us understand it, statistics can normalise it and then the victim/sufferer/advocate needs to defend both the condition and the gains that have been made for acceptance.

With homosexuality laws can be made to protect the gay, professionals can explain it and then the process of normalising it can be undertaken.

One strand of the condition is gay marriage.. it has to be normalised and suggestions to go and set up their own rules won't fly because that creates an *abnormal* or different situation.. the goal is to normalise it by having exactly (or as near as possible) the same ingredients as heterosexual marriage.. right down to the actual words.

Having achieved that you have to defend the whole structure. Only a few gays actually marry and most co-habit. So when co-habituation is shown to be a poor substitute for child rearing it is in fact attacking one of the main planks of modern homosexuality.. its hard won basic right to legitimacy which includes co-habituation. Suddenly its not about marriage and kids but about legitimacy and lifestyle.. gay marriage is a nice to have but cohabitation is the norm that must be defended.

In trying to normalise homosexuality and gay marriage you create a contradiction and a threat to co-habituation and so there will be a strong defense of... what?.. gay marriage, child rearing, co-habituation or overall legitimacy of homosexuality?

There'll be more heat than light on this one.