Because if I disagree with you, I’m “hateful” – but if you disagree with me, then I’m “hateful”. Isn’t that how it goes?
I’m having a tough time with this idea that a belief that has existed for thousands of years is now a crime simply because one group of people says it is. That’s not exactly a new way to “win” a debate over rights, but I thought we’d replaced rule by “whim of the elite” with the consent of the governed?
There’s just something crazy backwards about one group claiming it’s “oppression” for parents to teach their kids that children are born to mothers and fathers.
The gay rights argument is saying, in essence, that because they hold their own beliefs to be sacred, then anyone else with beliefs that contradicts theirs has to be put down – and so what if the other people hold their own beliefs to be equally sacred?
It’s a funny form of quote-unquote “equality” that privileges one set of beliefs over other beliefs. (As I’ve argued before – here and here – I disagree strongly with the idea that civil rights can or should be resolved by use of coercive force. Real civil rights both can and must be resolved through persuasion.)
And if the criticism of this book had stopped short of “playing the hate crime card”, I probably would have left it alone – or at least would be making a very different argument. But classifying a core Christian belief as a hate crime is serious stuff.
I don’t think it is coincidental that, although I have asked many, many times, not a single person has ever volunteered a reason why being gay needs to include the right to force your kid to live without a mother or without a father. Just what is gained? What horrible thing would happen if gays were expected to teach their children to call their biologically unrelated partner “stepmother” (like everyone else in the world has to do) instead of misrepresenting that person as a “second mother”? What’s so awful about letting the kid meet his dad? A child does in fact have reason to want to know his dad; he has reason to value that experience, that relationship. So why is it so important that he not be allowed to do so?
Because shut up, that’s why.
I say it’s not coincidental because I believe there is a direct correlation here. When people arguing a case have a strong argument, they don’t use bully tactics. For instance, gay rights activists know they’re on firm ground when they argue that “nobody should be forced to live a lie”. They’ve got a compelling argument. The destruction wrought when gays are shamed into lying is well documented, and so they can make their argument based on logic, reason, facts, evidence, anecdote, and persuasion. And it’s hard to refute (I have yet to hear a persuasive rebuttal).
But when it comes to why any child needs to be required to accept “having two mommies”, suddenly all those arguments about how “marriage is not procreative” vanish, in favor of a host of excuses, justifications, sob stories, sleight of hand, denials – anything to minimize what they are doing to their kids.
I believe it’s precisely because they know they’re demanding something unethical that makes them incapable of withstanding criticism. But that’s a real problem, given that approximately half the nation (give or take) disagrees with at least some of what they’re
We gotta coexist. That has got to cut both ways. It’s simply not reasonable to demand that Christians will adopt humanist beliefs – beliefs that they find offensive and believe to be morally wrong, even evil – just because humanists are sure they are right. (Hey, guess what! Christians think they’re right, too!)
Reciprocity is the basic building block of civil discourse. Is it really coincidence that every world religion that holds family ties to be sacred also posits some variation on “the Golden Rule”?
The Golden Rule
do unto others as you would have others do unto you.
Nobody is forcing humanist families to make their kids read this book. It’s not likely anyone ever will – in fact, it’s far more likely that Christian kids will be forced to read “Heather Has Two Mommies” than the other way around.
But that’s not enough. It’s not enough because in order to believe that Heather can “have two mommies”, there has to be a taboo. We have to understand that we mustn’t ever talk about why Heather doesn’t get to know what it is to have a father. We must pretend that there are no differences between fathers and mothers.
Because precious rituals, experiences, relationships, and traditions are terribly, terribly important when gay people don’t get to have them, but we’re supposed to believe those things don’t matter at all when Heather is the one who won’t ever get to experience them.
The argument is that It’s okay if Heather never gets to do all the things girls do with their dads because, we are told, Heather doesn’t mind. The problem with this argument is that Heather decided she wasn’t going to mind before she was born. Her “decision” was made under duress.
Too many gay rights activists routinely teach their kids that Christians – or, to use their phrases, “Christofascists” and “Godbags” – are responsible for everything bad in the world, deliberately ignoring or misconstruing anything that doesn’t fit the narrative, and then say it’s justified on the grounds that Christians are haters. They don’t even pretend to be halfway as tolerant toward Christians as they expect Christians to be toward them. They’re just right because they know they’re right, and that means they’re justified. Believe what I tell you to believe, or else you’re just obviously a h8r.
Well, I don’t care what gays do in bed, but I am angry about how gay rights activists are behaving in public. I’m angry at how venomous the comments on that blog site are, and how venomous the comments on that Amazon site are, and how hypocritical the people making the comments are being. And how openly, unapologetically nasty they are. They are the ones who want a society that is 100% completely ruled by their beliefs, no dissent allowed.
They can’t win by persuasion, and they don’t really try – and I think it’s because they know they can’t defend the practice because there is no reason why being gay means their child has to be motherless or fatherless. There’s no reason except “I want”, and “want” is not enough to justify what they are demanding.
No child should ever have to grow up without both mother and father. Any child unfortunate enough to be in that situation should be allowed to grieve – openly.
No child should ever have to pretend that having a stepmother is just as good as having a dad. It isn’t, and you can’t get a child to pretend otherwise except through duress – that is, emotional abuse.
Because there is such a thing as reality, and it does matter.
Christians are allowed to believe that – and so is anyone who cares about honesty.
BTW it has nothing to do with being gay: a growing number of lesbians and gays are innovating solutions (such as coparenting contracts) that do not require that their child live without the chance to know both a same-sex parent experience and an opposite-sex parent experience. You don’t have to do this to your kid, even if you are gay and you want to live as an openly gay person.
Because let’s face it: when your entire argument is based on the idea that it’s evil to live a lie – how can you turn around and ask your kid to lie for you?