Sexism

...

Still another suggestion of the collapse in moral argumentation is the emotionalizing of the gay marriage question. Over roughly the past twenty-five years, masses of gay people have come out, and this is definitely welcome. Suppression and gloomy self-regret are certainly not good things. The result of this coming out is that masses have acknowledged their sisters, brothers, uncles, cousins, aunts, and friends as gay. The homosexual individual is no longer some strange and mysterious “other,” but someone known to be a decent human being. This advancement, too, is nothing but encouraging. The people with a homosexual orientation must always be treated with the respect. Yet, it does not follow that everything a decent person does or wants is essentially decent. Without a substantial argument, we cannot just say that whatsoever a normally nice and affectionate person selects to do is, by the very nature of the thing, right. This is why I am never fascinated when a politician says that he is now in support of gay marriage, because he has learnt that his son, whom he sincerely loves, is gay. Don’t misinterpret me: I am sincerely delighted whenever a father loves and accepts his gay son. Yet, that feeling of love in itself does not establish an argument.

The attentive reader will have noted that I have not submitted such an argument in the course of this essay. That will have to be problem for a new day. What I am trying to do is clear away some of the haze that complicates this issue, in the anticipation that we might ultimately see, with some transparency and objectivity, what my views are on homosexual people.