False compromises

In reading one of PZ Myers’ latest blog posts, I realized I’m becoming far more aware of the fallacies of compromise when it comes to culture war topics involving the religious. PZ was writing about the current round of contraception debates, and how we shouldn’t compromise our own arguments because all they do is give the other side rhetorical capital with which to continue retarding social progress. Specifically, it’s a mistake to argue that contraception should be made freely available not just because women want to have sex, but because it is often useful in ablating the effects of endometriosis or cramps.

But why distract attention from the crux of the issue? Do we or do we not believe in liberty for all man and womankind? There is absolutely nothing wrong with a woman who enjoys safe, consensual sex between herself and other adults; and to refrain from dispelling that notion can only delay humanity’s exodus from our prudish and priggish past. Contraception’s useful secondary benefits are just that, an added bonus to the argument for liberty.

If religious conservatives don’t like contraception, then they don’t have to use it. THAT’S the compromise.

We can see this compromise in the same-sex marriage issue as well. Why are liberals/secularists willing to accept the sterilized term of "civil union" when the word marriage works just fine? This compromise is nothing more than a tacit admission that marriage is owned by religion - it's not - and that homosexuals should still be separated in some way from the rest of society.

Again, if you don't approve of gay marriage, then don't get gay married. THAT'S the compromise.