One big problem I have with people when it comes to the issues of the day big and small, is their inability and more often than not, unwillingness and flat out refusal, to be consistent in their positions on various issues. I was taught that you can determine the soundness of an idea by applying it to both sides of a question, and that notion has stood me in good stead over the years. Sadly, its also an idea that doesn’t seem to have gone very far out into the land.
What’s worse is that often people confuse their own sense of advocacy for a reasoned argument rooted in moral terms, which is to my mind abhorrent and egregious to an unprecedented degree.
For example…
Gay Marriage. Now, no matter where you fall on the matter be it pro or con, if you’re consistent you either say that the current definition of marriage has to be opened to all, or to be kept as is. Why should only gay folk get to be legally married, but Mormons and Muslims, both of whom believe in polygamy, can’t? Many gay rights activists will attempt to argue that gays marrying follows the current model of a one to one pairing, instead of involving multiple numbers of people. Although such a position ignores the fact that said pairing also focuses on *one Man, one Woman*, what they also don’t seem to want to admit that those who are lovers but are related by blood, also can’t marry either-yes, that’s right, I’m talking about incest, and there is a such thing as brothers and sisters, among other familial arrangements, falling in love and wanting their union recognized. Why can’t they get married, too? For me, the issue is simple-if you want to change the definition of marriage, you have to open it up for all these groups to get hitched. Or none at all. That way, its fair.
Abortion. Whatever the intent of the original Roe ruling, the bottomline is, that Women now have the legal right to determine when, if ever, they will become parents-and that this choice cannot be encumbered in any way by her private sex life. Men on the other hand, do not have this right. They either must abstain from sex altogether, or have themselves “fixed”-things that we have already said wrt Roe (read: Women) are unacceptable. If a Man cannot have a say as to what a Woman does with her body, in this case to have or abort a baby, it then follows that said Woman cannot then force him to underwrite her choices either way. Moreover, it seems to me extremely unfair to tell an entire half of the population that they have no reproductive rights any court is bound to respect. If Women have the unmitigated right to abort, Men should have the right to opt out. Consistent.
Affirmative Action. Staunch opponents of this usually come from the right side of the political spectrum, and they often make the case in “meritocracy” terms. That’s fine, except for the fact that they are either oddly silent on, or when pressed, offer weaksauce defenses and rationalizations of other forms of preferences and quotas-take George W Bush, for example. Everyone knows that he got where he is in life as a direct result of his father and by extension his family. Those connections were crucial at every step of Bush 43′s life-and it is not too far a stretch to suggest that other, more qualified, yet less connected and less wealthy people lost out. Yet, Ward Connerly didn’t seem to have much of a problem with the Dubyas of the world, and neither do his fellow travelers on the right-they’re ONLY concern, is Affirmative Action. Period. Personally, I find such a position hypocritical in extremis-you’re either against preferential treatment across the board, or you’re not, and you shouldn’t attempt to paint your case as some grand stand for principle. You should instead simply say that you have a problem with Black folks getting a bump in the line. The. End.
These and many, many other things, are really what irritates me, not because people may or may not disagree with me, but because of the disingenuous way they often will attempt to base their views. Instead of merely admitting that they have a very biased dog in the fight and leaving it at that, they attempt to make their dog *the dog* if you will, backed up appeals to morality and so forth. Ugh.
Comment & reply, holla.
The Obsidian
