Apparently the irrational arguments aren't totally limited to the religious. I read this on an apparently "secular" conservative blog.
"If you have a cognitively-challenged underclass, as every large nation has, you need some anchoring institutions for them to aspire to; and those institutions should have some continuity and stability. Heterosexual marriage is a key such institution. In a society in which nobody had an IQ below 120, homosexual marriage might be plausible. In the actual societies we have, other considerations kick in."
- What. The. Fuck? Does intelligence have anything to do with marriage? One could argue some of the smartest men were terrible husbands, in many cases unfaithful even when married, I certainly don't have the best track record in terms of attentiveness as a prospective mate myself. Where does any gender requirement fit into this aspiration that we're supposedly feeding the stupid people to have? It would seem to me to make more than enough sense to simply hold out "marriage" as an aspiration for the society of the stupid, and not worry too much about who an adult citizen chooses as a life partner from amongst other adult citizens.
Fortunately, I was not alone in castigating this idiocy. And I see charges like this being leveled which may be heartening. "As conservatives, we should be at the forefront of demanding individual rights and responsibilities - not circulating fear about change." I'm not quite sure how that's actually the premise of "conservative", since it is actually the classical definition of "liberalism". I assume they're following along with the premise of equality under law and limited government. But these were originally liberal concepts. I'm generally confused as to what any "social conservative" hopes to achieve. But when I see people define conservatism this way, it becomes more thoroughly muddy water.
The New York Times' Green Baloney
13 minutes ago