Think Pink
by Dave Konig
YouTube Dave Konig Roasts George Takei
As usual, Dick Cheney is right and Barack Obama is wrong.
It’s time to wave the pink flag and drop opposition to gay marriage.
I’ve changed my thinking on this one. Personally, I admit my opposition to gay marriage has always been on the same level as my opposition to the death penalty: I understand and appreciate the arguments against both intellectually – but in actual practice, I simply don’t lose any sleep over either. With the death penalty, I sympathize with moral opposition – but when a Ted Bundy takes that final ride on “Old Sparky” (or that final big sleep on “Old Lethal Injectiony”), my only real objection is that it isn’t televised.
Similarly, with gay marriage, I understand those who have a religious objection to the concept (unlike, say, every single liberal true-believer I’ve ever met in my life, I tend to err on the side of respecting other people’s religious beliefs…that’s how my mother raised me), but in actual practice, my reaction is, well, kind of Zen. It’s like the old philosophy question: if two gay men get married in Vermont, and I’m not invited to the ceremony, are they really making any noise that affects my life one way or the other?
Like most of my deeply held convictions, this one grew out of developments in my show business career (like, say, every single other actor I’ve ever met in my life, I am a remarkably shallow, self-centered individual). Recently, the NY Friars Club had a roasting competition – a series of celebrity roasts held at the club with a bunch of us comics competing for valuable cash and prizes (or a free chicken dinner with Mickey Freeman). The comics’ names were all thrown into a hat and matched up with various celebrity roastees. I got lucky. I could have been roasting Vincent Pastore (Big Pussy – how many more Lisa Lampanelli jokes does the world really need?), Gary Dell’abate from the Howard Stern show (since my own show on Sirius ended I don’t have my free subscription, so I’m not up on the latest Ba Ba Booey in-jokes), or Omarosa (apparently Puck from the 2003 season of MTV’s Real World wasn’t available). I got paired up with George Takei.
Are you kidding? Jackpot! Everybody loves George Takei! And talk about some easy targets for comedy: Japanese, gay, “Star Trek”… If you can’t write a few roast jokes for a gay Japanese Star Fleet navigator, you’re in the wrong business.
The show went great. Very funny stuff from Tom Cotter, Jim David, Cory Kahaney, and Gilbert Gottfried. My contribution to the festivities went well, and all had a good time.
George Takei was funny, charming, and gracious. His longtime companion, (now his, well, husband? Married partner? Mr. Takei?) Brad Altman, was equally charming and gracious.
Watching George and Brad together that night, it was hard to see how they were a threat to the institution of marriage. Oh, the institution is in trouble alright. Welfare policies that give young, poor women a financial incentive not to marry the father of their children (and, in turn, give the fathers an excuse to not take responsibility for their children) have destroyed marriage in the inner cities. The societal acceptance of middle-aged upper-middle class women adopting (or having, or surrogating, or whatevering) babies without bothering to include a father/husband in the picture has been a fiasco for marriage.
The glorification of knucklehead celebrities who use marriage as just another publicity stunt for their new movie/CD/reality show (host “Saturday Night Live,” get married, drop by “The View,” get divorced…) hasn’t helped. Neither has no-fault divorce, the all-purpose ripcord for the terminally lazy (because it’s easier to get divorced than to apologize for being such a shmuck).
Our mainstream pop culture doesn’t help. Like reruns of “Friends.” I loved the show, but I’d never let my teenage daughter watch it. Not primarily because of the sex jokes – but because of the way marriage is thrown away as a punch line (everybody on that show was either getting married by mistake, or getting pregnant without getting married, or getting divorced so they could get pregnant with somebody else’s babies, or marrying a baby, or…).
I think a large part of opposition to gay marriage is rooted in a mathematical fallacy: the “fact” that ten percent of the population is gay. There are 300 million Americans. So the concern is that you might be looking at thirty million gays getting married. That’s a lot of gay marriage! The ten percent figure comes from the Kinsey report. But Kinsey was a nut who based a lot of his data on studies of prison populations. The hoosegow in Kinsey’s time, an era of criminalizing homosexuality, by its very nature had a higher percentage of homosexuals than the rest of the world. I’ve lived in New York City my whole life. Even here I’ve always thought that the ten percent number was way high (except when I played Vince Fontaine in the 90’s revival of “Grease” on Broadway – percentage of homosexuals in your average Broadway musical? Ninety two percent. Rama lama lama!).
So let’s say the more accurate figure is five percent. That’s 15 million, as Jim McGreevy would call them, gay Americans. Subtract the very young and the very old. Narrow it down to the gays in their 30s and early 40s – your big marrying years. That’s probably one quarter of our 15, so three or four million. Now, subtract one quarter that isn’t even dating, another quarter that are dating but not seriously involved. Now we’re down to two million. Okay, we’ve got two million gays in committed relationships. How many of them want to actually get married? Maybe half. Now we’re down to one million gays who want to get married. George and Brad are already married, so you can subtract them. That’s just fewer than one million gays who might want to actually get married.
Out of those one million gays, 25 percent will break up over arguments about the wedding plans (The band! The centerpieces!). So it’s really only 750,000 gays. That’s 375,000 gay couples. Mostly in LA and NY. And Provincetown. In a nation of 300 million.
What will happen to those gay married couples? Let’s face it, half of them will get divorced just like everybody else. After the initial novelty wears off, the numbers of new gay marriages will probably drop. The whole thing will eventually (you’ll pardon the expression) blow over.
Conservatives: go libertarian on this one! Let the states decide, call it something else: union, partnership, really really going steady. And to George and Brad, much happiness and a belated “mazel tov” from Dick Cheney and me.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
102 Comments
You got off some nice lines. I liked the gay green card bit, that really got me. If you get to roast Matt Lauer, maybe you can ask him if it's true that Chapstick has decided to name their new lip baum in honor of NBC's news team. It's going to be Brown so when you put it on your lips you get the experience of an NBC anchor doing an Obama interview (I don't know….maybe there's a joke there, maybe not).
I see your point, and agree with much of what you've said. I am not a fan of gay marriage, but life as we know it won't end if it becomes the law of the land. My only worry is that when freedom of religion bumps up against gay marriage and anti-discrimination legislation, freedom of religion will be required to yield even though it is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. That is an unacceptable resolution. But if the gay marriage activists and the anti-religion forces can find a way to write legislation which guarantees freedom of religious institutions to refuse to perform same-sex marriages with no penalty or government interference, I will vote against it on religious principle and learn to live with it on pure practical grounds. The removal of the word "marriage" entirely from the civil contract previously restricted to opposite-sex couples is one possible solution. Then every couple is free to have a marriage ceremony in any religious institution willing to perform such ceremonies, but the legally-binding contract will be subject solely to civil law whether the ceremony was religious or civil. That is the "union" or "partnership" option you spoke of. Every couple is required to have the civil ceremony, and for those of a religious persuasion, the religious ceremony still determines the theological validity of the marriage according to each person's personal religious belief. Thus, every "union" is of equal validity, but the traditional religious significance of the word "marriage" ceases to be the divisive and hate-filled donnybrook it has been over the years.
I am not so worried about Gay Marriage as I am "Mission creep" by the left. Where does it stop, where do we take a stand, if we allow this, what's next? If it is legitimized, will the churches be forced to accept Gay marriage in their church or face prosecution?
Dave, I've come to accept the idea of gay marriage. After all, why should they be happy?
http://shermansmarch.blogspot.com
Takei is a great sport and hilarious too, take for example his appearance on the William Shatner roast on Comedy Central. As a conservative I'm happy that he has been able to affirm his partnership though a "marriage" ceremony. I happen to think marriage should not involve the government at all and should therefore be left to the churches or other institutions to handle.
Well played sir! I agree completely.
I agree with you, even to the point of voting against it but accepting it if it were enacted in my state. However, I think it's unnecessary to remove the word marriage from the civil contract . First, it would be a meaningless exercise in semantics – there is no "right" to get married, it is a privilege of citizenship to have your marriage recognized. True, there must be protections written into the law extending that privilege – too many times (once is enough), those who have newly earned this privilege have gone too far and attempted to put limits on the establishment clause. Unacceptable.
I think the problem there is our "rights" culture, and that's what makes them think they can encroach upon freedom of worship – if they're both "rights", then they compele on a level playing field. Many people just don't understand what rights, entitlements, and privileges really mean anymore. Broadly speaking (I'm not a lawyer here), I believe rights are specifically enumerated, like free association, worship, keeping and bearing arms, etc., and the difference between privileges and entitlements is whether it costs the government to provide it (i.e. public education is an entitlement, a driver's license is a privilege). An entitlement or a privilege should never go near interfering with a right.
Back to "civil unions" -what would people call it? A "civil partnership?" No, they'd still say they were married. What makes the marriage valid to the state is the signature on the certificate, wherever and however finalized. We already have civil ceremonies for marriage (I had one), and currently a civil or religious ceremony suffices in the law to make the marriage valid, so let's keep it simple. Reading your post, it seems your proposal would ADD complexity by requiring two separate ceremonies. Unnecessary.
I say leave marriage as it is. After all, it would be extending a privilege already in place.
My father. slightly conservative, lives in San Francisco and entertained the thought of taking a house plant to city hall to marry just to see Gavin Newsome sweat. I think we need to draw the line at two humans but how can that be legally justified if you can marry whomever, whatever, you choose? That's why the Gov't shouldn't be in the business of marriage.
I have no earthly idea why gay activists who describe "straights" as "breeders" want to get married and have children…and yet this is what we see.
To me, this sounds like a very confused and disorganized political agenda. But maybe I haven't thought about it enough. Sheesh.
With a neo Marxist in the WH nationalizing anything that comes within his sights, going around the world apologizing for America's existence even to those who are dedicated to America's nonexistence, whether Joe and Bill get married or Lucy and Tammy live together just like they are married is way down on my list of things to be concerned about. Lawhawke above makes a good point — so long as the legislation can be written so that churches are not forced to marry gays against their beliefs, have at it. We have a lot more to worry about than an aging Star Trek navigator wanting to legalize his long term love of his boyfriend.
That's been my compromise for a while LawHawkeSF, and it's the only way I can see to let marriage remain marriage in all it's meanings in all the various religious institutions that consider it one of their most sacred ceremonies. Somehow, if this compromise isn't taken, I have bad visions of a gay couple somewhere marching into a church and demanding that the church marry them with the church refusing directly forcing a gay rights v. freedom of religion issue in the courts, and in that battle no one wins.
And if you say it wouldn;t happen, I have only to direct you to the various instances where businesses that haven't offered services to gays for various reasons have been sued for it.
If we're going to change the fundemental meaning of marriage why should it be limited to two people? If we're going to accept same sex marriages then how can anyone justify not letting three, four or ten people form a single marriage? What right would anyone have to set ANY restrictions.
If I have a dog, that animal as a living creature is afforded some rights right now, (not to be tortured,starved, cruelty to animals etc…etc). The state recognizes dogs as having intelligence as we have dogs that have real jobs, drug sniffing,guard dogs, etc..etc… Dogs do have a level of intelligence, they are capable of forming relationships with humans they can be shown to be more loyal than most people. So If I wanted to marry a dog, under the new rules, how could anyone refuse?
Your father would better served to walk into city hall and demand a polygmist marriage.
I wouldn't describe myself as "pro" gay marriage, as much as I would "no-skin-off-my-fanny", but as a conservative and long-time observer (you gotta admit- from a detached sociological standpoint, they're fascinating) of the behavior of certain factions of the GLBT ('Gilbert') community, you're dreaming if you think that "the traditional religious significance of the word "marriage" ceases to be the divisive and hate-filled donnybrook it has been over the years." The more radical among them want, nay, demand, full-blown societal approval and celebration. Yours and my benign indifference, codified by some legalistic adjustments just ain't gonna cut it with these folks…
If gay marriage passes, kiss religious freedom in this country goodbye with all those lawsuits against churches that "discriminate" against gay marriage because they still believe in the Bible. That is EXACTLY what will happen. It's already happenned in Canada and Scandinavia.
Exactly. Another tool to browbeat the religious and those with traditional values. It's nothing about human rights or freedom, it's all about control and enforcing minority views by fiat. Too bad the writer doesn't get this.
But congrats to you Konig, I'm sure showing all your buddies the video with Takei and your "brave" post at that site full of bigots will get some attaboys at the latest cocktail party.
I'll never understand why this site continually promotes people who want to lecture its audience.
I wonder about this two.
If one can justify this on "basic human rights" grounds, why not 10 wives and a dog as being Married.
Where does this end?
That two was supposed to be too! We need an edit function on this site.
If gay marriage is indeed a "fundamental right" (as the Gay lobby claims), then churches choosing NOT to marry gays will NOT be an option. This is so obvious that I can only conclude that the pro gay marriage types (like the author) don't really care about religious freedom. Which means they are the enemy as far as I'm concerned. Shame this blog gives them yet another platform (as if they didn't have enough platforms already).
There is no reason for the government to be involved in marriage. Marriage is a religious institution. If two homosexuals want to get 'married' according to whatever concept they hold, they can go to a church which accepts that premise and get married.
Government got involved in marriage: 1) to assure that heterosexual couples who intended to make children were good to go at a low risk of birth defects (ie, bad blood mix, first cousins, siblings), 2) to give women with young children (and those who dedicated their lives to child-rearing) some economic protection from dying or deserting husbands, and 3) to support father/mother/children families through income tax breaks. Goverment has long since undermined 2 and 3 by counterproductive welfare programs that reward single mothers far more than any benefit provided for being married. The function of protecting against bad blood is now largely meaningless since most children are born out of wedlock. The function of protecting women with children from dying or deserting husbands is covered by other law. Government needs to get out of the marriage business entirely. Neither reward nor punish unmarried or married.
You do, you just have to have an IntenseDebate account!
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
I have three objections to your argument:
1. Marriage is recognized by both the state and churches, but it was instituted by neither of them. Marriage exists and was developed prior to, and independently of, both; and neither has the power to alter the definition.
2. The "let the states decide," and "call it a civil union" arguments are simply irrelevant. States won't end up deciding this, the courts will. Calling it a "civil union" in Connecticut worked—for about five minutes. The State Supreme Court then jumped in and said that that distinction was unconstitutional. Voila! Gay marriage.
3. I cannot understand how you could make a decision on this matter based upon the number of homosexuals in America. Are you saying you'd be against gay marriage if there were more gays? How can you justify that? Anyway, if there are more than a few hundred gay marriages in the entire country, that fact will certainly be used to label churches who do not recognize them as bigoted. This is a back door attack on freedom of religion.
E-Harmony?
You ignore several major points, one of which is the historical "malleability" of sexuality. Men, especially, are mercenary when it comes to sexuality. History has shown that men will pretty much have sex with anything that they are permitted to have sex with (i.e., that there is no sanction against having sex with). In Greece and certain American Indian tribes, "mentoring" young boys was quite acceptable. Hence, lots of man-boy love. In Brazil, with one of the highest AIDS and sexually-transmitted disease rates in the world (as well as one of the highest rates of cosmetic plastic surgery), bi-sexuality is considered a societally acceptable option which does not impinge upon one's masculinity – so long as one is the pitcher and not the catcher.
Is more homosexual practices, especially male homosexuality, a good thing for society? To deny that there will not be more if American society sanctions, wholesale, gay marriage – is simply against the weight of evidence. While there may doubtless be those who are either born gay or become gay through environmental factors at such a young age that, for all intents and purposes, it might as well be genetic, this ignores the fact that homosexuality is a BEHAVIOR in which anyone can engage. Given male sexuality, I believe it's simply the "ooo, gross" societal taboo factor that keeps more men from engaging in the act when they feel like some quick, easy, sex. Imagine – getting all the sex you want without having to deal with the complex female psyche?
This was the great advantage for men of the sexual revolution – women were made to feel unenlightened or "less than" or "not in touch" with themselves if they had a problem with one night stands. Marriage developed to provide a societal sanction/penalty which favored monogamy and penalized promiscuity. The legalization of gay marriage and the wholesale elevation of homosexual behavior, will only further serve to strain male-female relationships.
So, you see, Mr. Konig, actions have wider consequences. And, your argument "how will men in Vermont getting married affect me" is as shallow as "how will multiple people getting married in Vermont affect me (why stop at 2)" — simple – because it obliterates the standard, the ideal; yes, in the same way that easy divorce does. But, this is a historical game-changer. In the history of civilization, no society has permitted the institution of marriage to be between to people of the same sex. Definitionally, that was impossible. You wish to change the definition and then claim that since there are no real consequences for YOU, there are no real consequences for society or anyone else. But, beyond your own nose, the long term consequences of getting rid of the "ooo" factor to homosexuality will be devastating. Maybe not in this or the next generation. But, a society which teaches its 2nd graders that Bill and Mike is no different from Bill and Mary is no different from Betty and Mary will without a doubt change radically. That may be ok with you – and that is, in my eyes, where the real debates lies. But, to claim "how would it really affect me" seems to be a ridiculous argument.
Your "old philosophy question" amounts to nothing more than, I believe, the height of narcissism. Jettison ten thousand years of human history and civilization, and the tenet of every major religion, because it doesn't make sense to YOU.
IIn reality there is almost no demand for irgender marriage. Only 12,000 in Massechusetts to date, half of which from out of state couples.. in California, one tenth of a percent of the people. Yet, a highly publicized and well financed campaign is in place to force it down the throat of We the People. The question is begged, why? There has already been restrictions of religious freedom in Mass., New Jersey and other states upon the legitimization of these unions. It seems pretty obvious that the real goal is an attempt to suppress mainstream christianity.
Additionally, I would argue that "Marriage" is a word with a meaning, and that that meaning has always been "A husband takes a wife" and a "groom takes a bride". Although it may merely be a matter of semantics, where in the hell does any group think that by fiat they can change the meaning of a word and force it down my throat aginst my will. So, even if the US takes the Israeli option and removes marriage from civil nomenclature, two men standing at an altar making a vow to each other will not be a marriage to me.
Doesn't society have a massive interest in marriage and stable families? Marriage is a pre-political institution which forms the very basis of society itself. It is a necessary, but not sufficient, institution.
Isn't the answer to get rid of those counterproductive welfare programs and strengthen marriage, rather than jettison the whole thing?
You're waving the white flag here.
It's not just societal approval and celebration they are after. They want the legal ability to suppress normative christian moral teaching. (I do not mean the average run of the mill gay or lesbian, I mean the extreme leftists in the media and the Democratic party who are financing and publicizing this issue well beyond it's relevance to our society).
the issue that just doesn't get addressed is the cultural and social significance of heterosexual marriage.
Before you turn back 4,000 years of societal evolution it would behoove one to look at the ramifications of the seemingly contradictory issue of gay marriage.
First of all, polygamy will be next. You cannot offer, under the equal protection clause of the Constitution, protection to one group and not allow another. Then age restrictions will disappear, allowing 50 year olds to marry 12 year old 'who consented'. This would degrade the institution down ot meaninglessness, therefore allowing the state to become the family and the government their parents…
It strike us that this is the ultimate stealth agenda here…
The Government's stake in marriage was in assisting a couple with the potential for creating and raising children with the means by which they could do so without the State having to actually raise the offspring directly. The gay activists defeated the purpose when they managed to enforce the feminist ideal of women relinquishing the traditional maternal role and ramrod through the courts gay adoption. Currently, with the Government taking over the raising and care of the next generation almost from birth, there is no need for Government involvement in any form of marriage. However, since the gay agenda is to apply the force of Government in making each citizen celebrate their choice of bed partner, Government sanctioned marriage isn't going anywhere. Shame, really. Government should either back off of marriage or back off of raising children directly. But dong both means more power, and there's no way the Government will let any amount of control slip from Its grasp.
In the meantime, we can laugh at Sulu and his 'husband', and know that their "gay marriage' has no effect on any lived but their own, but they'd best watch their carbon footprint, because some actions really do have a larger impact, right?
The non-human argument is easy to knock down, the better question is "Can a brother marry his brother?"
Marriage was actually established so kids would know who their parents were. I say let anyone get married, and if they don't produce children in a couple of years, it gets downgraded to civil union.
At least we're better off than Islamic countries, where they have the gay death penalty.
The neo-Marxist would likely not be IN the White House nor going on his apologizing tour were it not for the denigration of marriage, Capitalism, and traditional values over the past few decades. To wring one's hands over the State of the Union while welcoming the destruction of one of the cornerstones seems largely counterproductive.
This whole discussion is surreal. The term "gay marriage" makes as much sense as "square wheel," and yet people who should know better speak in serious (or jocular, as if to disarm opposing viewpoints as risible, and I'm talking to you, Konig) tones about how there is no harm in it.
Ten years ago it was perfectly constitutional to outlaw sodomy (and it still is under the real Constitution, God rest its soul), and yet even then gays shacked up unhindered by the government. As a practical matter, there was then, and as a legal matter there is now, nothing preventing gays from living in committed relationships, arranging for inheritance of property on death, etc. So clearly gay marriage not about letting gays live the way they want to. It is a mockery designed to allow gays to feel normal, and to obliterate all sexual norms. Would gays want to marry if we still had sensible, fault-based divorce laws? Remove sex from God's (or nature's, if you prefer) design and all you have is the stimulation of nerve endings with no other purpose but to "feel good." You get celebrities jacking off to death. You get millions of abortions. You get a native population that doesn't regenerate itself. You get religious freedom — the principal motivator of some of this continent's earliest settlements — completely euthanized.
All this in the name of freedom. If no one noticed before where the Enlightenment philosophy of unbridled tolerance contains the seeds of its own destruction, it should be obvious now. Welcome to the end of real freedom. Greetings to the new tyranny of sexual license and non-judgmentalism. We'll be like Orwell's proles, docile and happy with our porn. Have fun raising your kids in such an environment.
LMAO
I'm against gay-marriage because it freaks the liberals out into a frothing frenzy.
I'm sorry if I enjoy that too much. I refuse to "go libertarian" on this one. Sorry.
(With much love to my gay younger brother)
First of all, I think it speaks volumes about us that on this site there can at least be a debate about same sex marriage….don't think for a second HuffPo would run a piece arguing against it.
That said, while I can empathize with a long-term gay couple whose partnership has outlasted an awful lot of Hollywood marriages, I'm still not sold. My reasons are two-fold: social chaos and the inevitable infringement on religious liberty.
As for the proposal that the government get out of the marriage recognition business, it doesn't wash with me either. What, we're going to strip meaning from one of the most ancient social institutions just to placate a small but very vocal minority? Just so we don't feel like meanie-weenies anymore? Marriage isn't just a religious institution, it's a SOCIAL one. Government only facilitates because we no longer live in small tribes where our clan arranges marriages for us and to be honest, unless you get a courthouse wedding or get a divorce or somebody sues you, the only time government cares about your marriage is on April 15 every year.
Words mean things and if government says there is no marriage and all partnerships are the same, it's in effect society saying "there is no such thing as marriage." Denmark has recognized same sex marriages for decades. It is now, like all of Scandinavia, a shack up nation. Hardly anyone outside of its bicycle royalty marries. As it is in the U.S., states that recognized same sex marriage eliminated "husband" and "wife" from the marriage certificates. In CA, you can't say "mom" and "dad" in public schools. Is this what we want?
Gays don't want to get married. They are just using the issue to browbeat society into submission. We saw what (male, at least) homosexual behavior is when they have total control of society. It happened in San Francisco in the 70's, and it wasn't marriage. It was massive, compulsive promiscuity. The more partners the better. The object wasn't stable loving relationships, it was scoring as often and with as many other men as you could. It was a society of gay bars, bath houses and glory holes. San Francisco in the 70's was a public health catastrophe, even if you took HIV out of the picture. It was a spike of every known venereal disease, and doctors were helpless in getting it under control. From syphilis to amoebic dysentery, epidemics were exploding. And Amoebic dysentery is a disease from the dark ages. Cities under siege suffer outbreaks of Amoebic dysentery. It is a symptom of the complete breakdown of the social order. There is only one way you can get it, and that is by eating human excrement. Usually when you can't separate drinking water from sewage. But that wasn't the situation in San Francisco in the 70's. Instead what you had was a sub group of the population engaging in promiscuous, unsafe sex practices, and no moral or societal strictures to restrain them. And that's what they will do again if they get their way.
And let's not forget what the institution of marriage is all about in the first place. Marriage is a custom that is universally practiced by every culture in the world, and far predates recorded history. The purpose of marriage is to protect women of child bearing age and children from dangers of the outside world until the children reach adulthood. Humans are not dogs, who reach maturity in a few months. Human childhood lasts for years and years, and children need to be protected until they become physically able to fend for themselves, AND display the maturity of judgment to keep from killing themselves before they can bear their own children. Hence marriage and the family structure. Hence also religion and laws, and traditions, and a society confident enough in itself to enforce them. Gays don't fit into that equation. And they shouldn't try to.
This is why same-sex marriage is inevitable. Opponents are bleeding from both sides — on the left, and the libertarian right. Prop 22 won by 22 percentage points, prop 8 by 4. 10 years ago, supporting civil unions was political suicide, today it's a moderate alternative. There just isn't a large enough core of supporters to withstand an assault from both sides.
Once we have the government recognizing same-sex unions as 'legitimate' then we will see, as commonplace, public displays of homosexual affection, that, quite frankly, I don't want to see. And, if I have to see it then I am being forced to accept something that isn't in my value system. I am the one forced to 're-think' my beliefs in order to accommodate this societal change. How many of us really believe that when we see same-sex kissing (or worse) think to ourselves "Yeah, that's natural." Good God Almighty! IT ISN'T NATURAL! God owes the people of Sodom and Gomorrah an apology. A simple "Oops, my bad" is all that's necessary, right?
The problem with gay marriage is that it could lead to the government telling the churches what they can and cannot do. Imagine a gay couple go to a church and ask to be married. The church opposes gay marriage on religious grounds and says they won't perform the ceremony. The couple sues and wins. The church is forced to go against their beliefs.
The government should get out of marriage. Every one should be granted civil unions from the governments, and get the full rights and privileges that come from marriage, but only the church can actually marry people. If the church doesn't want to marry a gay couple because of their religious convictions, then they shouldn't have to. I understand it's mostly a question of semantics, but it's an important one.
Okay, I hear you, and that clause limits the federal government's power to specify rights the states and localities may dedicate – that is eminently proper. But marriage is still not a right, outside of free religious expression, it is an acknowledgment by the state of a couple's status that enables certain legal privileges and entitlements (i.e. married filing joint tax return) .
Perhaps I wasn't clear since I used the first and second amendments for my examples. A right is a right if it is specified by states or localities, too, at least in their jurisdiction. If there is an unequivocal "right to marriage" in a state, then there is no mere statute that could interfere with a gay couple getting married there.
Do you have the right to drive a car? No, you can only operate a car with a license. Therefore it is a privilege that can be revoked to protect the rights of other people.
Mostly what I'm saying is, is that the specifically enumerated rights have precedence, by virtue of their enumeration, over other perceived rights we take for granted.
I'm not disparaging other retained rights, BUT, your rights stop where they interfere with mine. That means, in my mind, a gay couple cannot infringe upon a Church's right not to marry them, establishment clause and all.
I see we agree. That's why I am attempting to make the distinction amongst rights, privileges, and entitlements in our discussion above. THEY HAVE NO 'RIGHT' to infringe upon free religious expression. If a church says NO, that should be the end of that – they should look for a church who will accommodate them, not force a church to perform (or allow on their property) a ceremony their belief refuses to allow.
I can't wait until there is a gay Muslim wedding here in the US. Just to see the fireworks.
I think the key to allowing gay and lesbian marriage without it becoming a slippery slope to plural marriages and so on is to define marriage as an exclusive sexual contract between two individuals and to insist that adultery in marriage be considered a legal wrong against the other partner in a marriage (many states seem to no longer consider adultery at all in divorce settlements). But the main sticking points for conservatives are going to be issues beyond gay marriage, itself, including what children are taught about gays and lesbians in school, whether churches and other groups will be compelled to perform gay marriages or punished for expressing disapproval of homosexuality, and whether foster parenting and adoption agencies are going to show no distinction between heterosexuals and homosexuals. These are already issues in places in the United States or in other countries. While I think it's easy to make a "live and let live" argument that gays and lesbians should be left alone to live in peace, I think it's much harder to convince people, religious or otherwise, that heterosexual and homosexual relationships are equivalent and indistinguishable in all ways such that parents should be just as happy if their children are gay or lesbian as they'd be if they were heterosexual or that children are just as well off with homosexual parents as heterosexual parents.
It's very sad to see even conservatives giving up on opposing same-sex marriage.
This is not about equality. This is not about rights. This is about a very small minority who wants to redefine marriage for EVERYONE and therefore push their lifestyle on people who want no part of it. It's about social acceptance. It's about bullying. And apparently, it has worked.
Again, it's very sad to see this article here at Big Hollywood.
THEY HAVE NO 'RIGHT' to infringe upon free religious expression.
Unforunately they already have. Catholic adoption agency had to close down in Massechussetts. Church owned banquet hall in New Jersey forced to allow it's use by a lesbian couple for a civil union reception.
The real agenda is not gay marraige, it is the hostile attack against mainstream christianity.
You are correct, of course. It amazes me how easily people capitulate on something so simultaneously absurd and important.
I really fear we are seeing the beginning of the end, the eventual destruction of all standards of morality and simple common sense.
A timely observation from a hundred years ago:
"[T]he double charges of the secularists, though throwing nothing but darkness and confusion on themselves, throw a real light on the faith. It is true that the historic Church has at once emphasised celibacy and emphasised the family; has at once (if one may put it so) been fiercely for having children and fiercely for not having children. It has kept them side by side like two strong colours, red and white, like the red
and white upon the shield of St. George. It has always had a healthy hatred of pink. It hates that combination of two colours which is the feeble expedient of the philosophers. It hates that evolution of black into white which is tantamount to a dirty gray. In fact, the whole theory of the Church on virginity might be symbolized in the statement that white is a colour: not merely the absence of a colour. All that I am urging here can be expressed by saying that Christianity sought in most of these cases to keep two colours coexistent but pure. It is not a mixture like russet or purple; it is rather like a shot silk, for a shot silk is always at right angles, and is in the pattern of the cross."
G.K. Chesterton
Orthodoxy
Chapter VI, "The Paradoxes of Christianity"
Well put.
Are we Defining Deviancy Down, or Defining Deviancy Up? It's so confusing…
Let's put it to a vote!
I don't disagree with Tammy Bruce:
"Gays ultimately need to stop looking to government for unconditional love and approval of who we are."
http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTI...
Or Barney Frank:
August 1, 2003
REAL TIME WITH BILL MAHER
MAHER: Okay, let me ask you this Congressman [Barney Frank (D-MA)], if gay people were allowed all the rights and privileges that anybody else could have, in other words, they could get the insurance and they could get everything else, but you couldn’t get the name “marriage,” would you go for that?
BARNEY FRANK: Oh, I would, yeah. If there were all the legal rights – remember, gay and lesbian people pay taxes and what we’re saying is, we should be eligible for all the benefits that are supported by the taxes we pay. If people want to create a situation which there is the full legal rights that go with being married, and the price of that was to call it something else, I’m not big on what you call things. And so that would not concern me at all.
What I’m looking for is the right, as I said, two people in love who want to join to their emotional commitment a legal and moral financial responsibility for each other, and if you wanted to call it something else, we can even have a contest.
http://www.safesearching.com/billmaher/print/t_hb... (expired link)
Or California law:
Family Code, Sec. 297.5. (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.
http://law.justia.com/california/codes/fam/297-29...
Konig – you're lying. You're not 'for gay marriage', you're for your paycheck. And the paycheck you earn is drawn from an industry – Hollywood – dominated by gays. Ergo – holding your nose and trying to make a joke out of it, you say that you are 'for' gay marriage. The lie of that, however, is given by how you justify why you're for it. 'Hell, there's not very many of them.' Yeah, that's it. You don't debate the sanctity of marriage, nor the morality of two homosexuals defiling a faith-based union, etc. Instead, you just quote body count. That's no justification at all – it's a sell out. And btw, as far as the excuse 'there's not many of them', sorry – but the Germans used that same excuse with a group called the Brown Shirts. Didn't work out so well. Take a lesson from the Germans – Konig – when you sacrifice your ideals for your self, you end losing both.
Why fight for principles when it's so much easier to surrender?
Make it civil unions and I would support it even though a Republican. Is it discrimination; yea probably. We also discriminate against multiple marriages and marriage between family members even if all are consenting adults. By making it civil unions, we allow the benefits of marriage to homosexuals while still being able to not allow other types of marriages that we do not want to allow in this country.
"force it down my throat against my will"?
a rather unfortunate choice of words…
clearly you're not in the "Not that there's anything wrong with it!" camp…
joking aside, that was an interesting take. however, at this point in human history i think you're tilting at windmills on this issue. the other side of the coin is the potential societal advantage of allowing, even encouraging, the creation of more stable family units- unconventional though they may be. you make an excellent point, though. would the positive value of this relatively small- even minuscule- number of new families be outweighed by potential negative consequences suffered by those who would have been, in another time, exclusively hetero, but got, umm, sucked into gay/bi experiences?
it depends on who is engaged in the PDA.
2 hot babes? no problemo.
2 big hairy dudes? big hairy problemo.
(sorry…)
Yes YatYas, but that's too logical and rational. It also doesn't force society to accept homosexuality as 'normal' . This is a fight for acceptance, not legal protections. If I were gay I would want to to avoid mainstream traditional conservative religious labels and revel in my uniqueness. For some strange reason I don't comprehend, gays seem to feel they're missing out by not being like everyone else. IT's not about equality, it's about sameness.
Marriage – the union of a man and a woman – is the oldest of all human institutioins. It predates government and religion. According to Judeo-Christian tradition, marriage was the first institution created by God and the only one instituted before the fall of man. It has served man well throughout the centuries and is considered by many to be the bedrock of society. To overturn such a venerated institution on the whim of a few who disagree with it – while at the same time wanting to be a part of it – is the height of lunacy. Even if a majority wanted to overturn the institution, the testimony of history itself would argue against it.
Mo, you are too right, too right.
Morality is how we define ourselves. And when we destroy even a part of that, we destroy ourselves. It's not about the 'right' of gays to marry, it's about what's right. Morality is right – immorality isn't. And gay marriage is immoral.
I disagree with this post for a variety of reasons, many of which have already been spoken, and in a much better way than I could have. But I will say this: I don't come to this site to read the same articles and opinions I hear everywhere else, I come here to read articles and opinions that differ from mainstream thought. If more articles keep popping up espousing leftist philosophy under the guise of moderate conservatism, I'm going to have to find someplace else to read what I'm looking for.
Objection to the idea of "gay marriage" has nothing to do with religious beliefs (I mean, it may in some peoples' minds, but that's not by any stretch the only argument against it). Let me put it in terms maybe you can understand, Mr. Konig. What would you think if the government came and took your kids on the grounds that they were ponies and you did not have the proper zoning permit to allow horses on your property? Absurd, right? Your kids aren't ponies. Well, the sodomites are arguing that the government has the right to define anything any old way it wants to. Therefore, your kid is a pony if and when your government says it is. And it is only a very short road from the absurdity of "gay marriage" to the absurdity of human ponies or anything else they can dream up.
Why is "gay marriage" absurd? Well, just as a human child is a human child, so is a marriage a marriage. "Marriage" is the term we apply to the enduring, monogamous union of a man and a woman, which union humans have considered since time immemorial to be the ideal arrangement for the begetting, nurturing, and education of children. Even today, free love is frowned upon, as we urge the natural parents of human offspring to "take responsibility" and do what we consider to be their natural duty to those offspring. Such duty is not limited to sending a check every month…what we want, ideally, is for the man and the woman to move in together, live together monogamously and provide all the benefits a nuclear family is thought to provide. We think it's good for the children, and we think it's good for the couple–in short, we recognize that there is something naturally "right" about that particular arrangement, which no other arrangement can duplicate.
The problem for sodomites is that neither two men nor two women can even potentially beget children. Therefore, a true marriage cannot be achieved by them. At best, they can mimic marriage by cohabiting and raising someone else's children. The thing is, we can completely leave aside the question of whether that's a good thing or not when we ask whether there can be such a thing as "gay marriage." The simple fact is that "gay marriage" is a logical impossibility. Period. It's an Orwellian attempt to call a man a pony that does immense violence to right reason. Give in on that point and you will tomorrow find yourself being ordered to call the adoptive homosexual parents the kids' "natural parents." The sky's really the limit on all the absurdities that will follow, yet you seem prepared and even eager to take off blind into that long, dark goodnight.
Oh, and incidentally, here is the proof that what homosexuals want is not equal benefits under the law, but rather to destroy marriage: calling such unions "civil unions" and granting them all the same tax benefits and so on that accrue to marriages would allow sodomites to hang together without doing damage to common sense. Unfortunately, that's been tried and rejected. We have such an arrangement right now, in California, and have had it for something like six years. But that's not good enough for California homosexuals. They want the word "marriage" itself, which is what our recent Proposition was about. Thus, inasmuch as I've already shown that to attempt to redefine "marriage" is to destroy it (i.e. make the word meaningless), it couldn't be any more obvious that homosexuals are literally out to destroy marriage. That is their primary object. It is an obvious and irrefutable fact.
(This is my own work, cut and pasted with minor changes from the comments section of another site because it gets tiresome constantly retyping the same argument.)
There's a famous quote by Abraham Lincoln that goes along with your first paragraph. "How many legs does a dog have, if you call his tail a leg? Five? No, the answer is four, because calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg." Senator Tom McClintock, from California, likened this quote to gay marriage just as you have your analogy, saying that just because you call it a marriage doesn't mean it actually is one. I very strongly agree. Thanks for your comments.
That's just one. There was a photographer that was sued as well.
My husband says he's heard of a case where a gay couple is suing a church because the won't let them have a civil service conducted on church grounds. So even if there is full separation of government and civil/legal rights from marriage, the gay movement may not stop there.
I think they won't stop until they try to push their lifestyle into every corner of American life. They need to understand that tolerance != acceptance. That you can't legislate acceptance, and that the best anyone has a right to expect in society is tolerance. Their rights end where everyone else's begin, and freedom of religion is one of the bedrock rights in this country.
Sulu was the helmsman.
Chekov was the navigator.
Just sayin'.
You would think it does, but since it hasn't seemed interested in it lately. No help is better than working against us by breaking us down even further. If they destroy our kinship bonds and destroy our faith communities and make us isolated and weak, then we turn to them when we are in need and become dependent on them. It makes us better peasants for the government to control. Do you even need to ask why the left actively undermines the things that make our society strong and independent?
Given that a society needs to maintain a certain base reporductive rate at which to ensure that it's culture will survive. Yes, having young children grow up more likely to favor one type of sexual identity over another they might otherwise have chosen could be catastrophic. Western civilizations are falling below the critical mass for maintaining themselves all over the globe. The United States is sitting at a 1.7 or 1.8% reproductive rate. It's not too late to raise that to a 1.9 or 2.0% which would be minimal numbers for us to hold at this level and ensure the survival of Western Civilization, but anything that would cause that percentage to dip even another tenth starts to make the survival of our culture less sure.
In Europe, most countries have already dipped well below what's considered the viable point with Italy under 1.5%.
We're breeding ourselves to cultural extinction.
Muhammad and Aisha , here we come!
See, there isn't any research to support your final assertion. Quite frankly, men and women are different no matter how much people may like to deny it. I think children do best when they are raised with rolemodels of both genders in their lives permanently – i.e. a parent of each gender. No matter how feminine a man may behave or how butch a woman may behave – they are still a man and a woman, meaning their homosexual unions would still consist of two men or two women respectively. But again, there isn't much research on the matter yet, certainly not enough to say with certainty that two mommies or daddies is equal to one mommy and one daddy.
In Connecticut, the state passed a law recognizing civil unions which the State Supreme Court then transformed into gay marriage.
The Catholic Church fought against both those measures, because they did not want to be forced out of their role in providing social services, as they have been in Massachussets. As a result of their opposition, the State of Connecticut, led by State Senator Andrew McDonald, has undertaken a witchhunt of the Catholic Church.
McDonald proposed a bill that specifically singled out the Catholic Church, and would have seized control of parish finances. When Catholics mobilized to denounce this, the State turned around and slapped the Church with heavy fines for—get this—not being a registered lobbyist! The Church has sued the State in federal court over that.
You can read about that here, if you're interested:
http://www.threedonia.com/archives/8286
It's always a good time for Chesterton, because Chesterton is always timely.
We tried civil unions in Connecticut. The State Supreme Court decided that distinction was unconstitutional and transformed them all into marriages.
"Civil Unions" are to radical homosexuals as "cease fires" are to islamists.
I would like a law passed that would re-define "fitness." According to the current standard (the body mass index or BMI) I am not considered to be in good shape.
This has caused me no end of distress and embarrassment, and a shortage of admiring glances from women. This shall not stand! I deserve the right to be called "fit" as much as anyone else does!
What I don't get is why they taught us in college that sexuality is "fluid," and straight people can discover that they are actually gay, but a gay person can't become straight. And what about bisexual people? I wonder how many gays are actually bi.
I believe the gay marriage agenda is really about trying to force people to accept homosexuality as normal, hence the homophobe stigma. That is my opposition to gay marriage – I believe they want gay marriage legal so they can say, "Hey, we're normal!" and not have to feel bad about what they do. The idea they put forth is that social stigma causes gay people to commit suicide, which is apparently a big problem, especially for young gay people. Now, while being a social pariah for any reason may make someone so sad that they decide to end their lives (since most people desire acceptance from other humans), I wonder if gay people being somewhat aware of the obvious unnaturalness of homosexual feelings is a factor in these suicidal feelings – among those who have them, of course – I'm not suggesting all gay people do, but based on some arguments I've heard in support of homosexuality, it sounds like a widespread problem… maybe that means it's not? I don't know. What it does show is that sympathy is a huge part of the gay marriage support strategy – "Feel sorry for us. It's not fair." Feel, don't think. "Oh, you don't support gay marriage? You're hateful! You don't have a right to say that!" Opponents are dismissed as mean, and silenced. But really, how dare we make moral judgments about any behavior? They shouldn't have to feel bad! Never mind that humans have sex drives to get us to make more humans, not to "express our individuality," or whatever they're calling it these days. Forget about the purpose of sex organs (thanks to abortion, in the minds of many people, sex is completely divorced from procreation). People should be able to "express themselves sexually" (the phrase they used in my HS senior year sex-ed class) however they want! After all, we're all individuals!
Yes, we are. And some of us do really weird things.
"At best, they can mimic marriage by cohabiting and raising someone else's children."
This reminds me of C.S. Lewis's The Last Battle, the last book in the Chronincles of Narnia, when the children discover that the England they knew, and even the Narnia they knew (to which evil in the form of slavery and abuse of religious belief had come), were only poor imitations of the real England and of the real Narnia, which exist only in Aslan's Country (Heaven).
"the other side of the coin is the potential societal advantage of allowing, even encouraging, the creation of more stable family units"
Yes, gay monogamy is preferable to gay promiscuity. But gay marriage is not a prerequisite for gay monogamy.
"would the positive value of this relatively small- even minuscule- number of new families be outweighed by potential negative consequences suffered by those who would have been, in another time, exclusively hetero, but got, umm, sucked into gay/bi experiences?"
Gay marriage leads to increased social acceptance of homosexuality, which leads to more "sucking."
This is why many men need good women to civilize them. Sorry if I come off as anti-man, but contrast rampant gay male promiscuity with rampant lesbian monogamy.
One of my gay friends in college put it perfectly when I whined about gay guys always having dates and boyfriends: "Okay, consider the male sex drive. Now put a bunch of horny gay males in a room together. What do you think is going to happen?"
Also, please consider the lesbian joke below:
Q: What does a lesbian bring on a second date?
A: A U-Haul.
Now, consider straight men and straight women. Sometimes members of both genders are really stupid, but in the end, we pretty much need each other (or at least we have an incredible potential to help each other improve! Imagine what an all female society would be like, or an all male society. Ugh!).
When do I get to marry the eight women who must have my body? When will all you reactionaries give them the same benefits to would give to gay couples?
the really fascinating battle will come in another 30-40 years time. there are 2 forces at work trying to destroy western civilization. both want to impose their system worldwide. for now, they are in battle against one enemy, and that is us (the USA, US Constitution, our founding principles, Christianity, conservatism, etc… however you want to define it). once we are defeated, they will have to turn their attention to one another. that's going to be a doozy of a battle… secular humanism/marxism vs. fundamental islam. i'll be long dead by that time, but that's the big battle to determine the future of mankind.
that battle is coming. sooner than most realize. take a look at this analysis of the changing demographics of Europe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU
One important effect of CHRISTIAN marriage was the end of polygamy. Charlemagne, (800AD) was essentially polygamous; his grandson was forced by the Church to keep his wife when he really really wanted to put her aside.
Non Christian societies have no problem with polygamy. Gay marriage will lead to polygamy. For sure.
You know, funny enough, I was raised as a Pentecostal in Alaska. When I was 24 my husband and I got transferred to Provincetown, Ma. What an eye-opener for me. I totally agree with civil unions for gay and lesbian people. However, marriage is a religious institution. I have a huge problem with the possibility that a church could get sued or whatever because it wouldn't marry a gay couple. I know for a fact the church I grew up in wouldn't condone it. They wouldn't marry me to my second husband because I had gotten a divorce from the husband that took me to P-Town. I have no hard feelings, that is the way my particular church was. Everybody still attended my wedding though. I do think though that through civil unions everybody that is a couple gets recognized and receives benefits as if they were a married a couple. One of my brothers is gay and lives in Mass. right now. I certainly don't think less of him or his partner due to their sexual orientation. I just don't think that churches should have to marry people when it is against their beliefs. Keep things the way it is. Keep it up to the States. Alaska even gives recognition to civil unions. You're still basically married. If you have to get married go to a state that acknowledges it, get married, then come home. It's really not that big of a deal.
Gay Marriage, yes. Right Wing Idiots, no.
And those are problems we unfortunately have to make sure legislation covers, even though it should already be there by virtue of the Constitution. Again, it's a confusion of what rights, privileges , and entitlements truly mean.
Reasoned debates, yes. Name-calling because you have the brain of a first-grader, no.
For someone named "common sense", you have a striking lack of it.
My final assertion was not that men and women are interchangeable. My final assertion was that most people don't believe that homosexual and heterosexual relationships are equivalent and that it's going to be very difficult to convince people otherwise.
There is a faction that extols every deviant, dirty, and dangerous thing as good, wholesome, natural, and normal.
Same sex marriage is just the latest trick out of the bag. As soon as society gives in to this demand, there will be a new demand forthwith. It's all part of the ongoing war against Christian civilization and the America that was once great. Now, thanks to the work of that faction, America has rampant illegitamacy and abortion, unfettered immigration, promotion of all causes homosexual, and a President who makes me feel like I'm a passenger on the Titanic.
375,000 gay couples out of 300,000,000 people and everyone should stop everything and do what they want.
Aren't they special.
Carolyn,
Yes, righting for conservative magazines and blogs (as well as hosting a conservative talk radio show for two years on Sirius) , and defending myself publicly as a conservative for decades in show business, is a sure-fire way to ingratiate myself with the Hollywood crowd!
Best,
Dave
Sarah,
One of the great things about conservatism is the respect for diversity of thought that is completely absent on the left. There are many subjects that you will find a range of opinions discussed on the right: this one (yes, that notorious leftist Dick Cheney and I have a different view here than you), legalizing pot (the late William F. Buckley campaigned for this for years, personally I disagree with him on that), even abortion – I am strongly pro-life, but I would vote for Rudy Giuliani for Governor of NY twice if I could (and in many districts of NY I probably could….)
This is healthy. as one of the other posters above said, you're not going to see this level of thoughtful debate on The Huffington Post.
There have been a lot of brilliant comments here – agreeing with me, and vehemently disagreeing with me. What's wrong with that?
Best,
dave
Any sentence that begins "let me put it in terms maybe you can understand, Mr. Konig" should always include "…if that's your real name", Perry Mason-style!
Best,
Dave
"That's why the Gov't shouldn't be in the business of marriage."
I find this to be an entirely reasonable position. However, might I ask if just for curiousity's sake if you've felt that way on the vsubject regarding the several centuries that Western government's have been "in the business of marriage," or did you arrive at this viewpoint only when the issue of including homosexuals came up?
"Once we have the government recognizing same-sex unions as 'legitimate' then we will see, as commonplace, public displays of homosexual affection, that, quite frankly, I don't want to see."
This will sound dissmissive, but… the only logical response I can find for this statement is, "Grow up."
"And, if I have to see it then I am being forced to accept something that isn't in my value system."
No, you're not being "forced" to "accept" anything. No one is telling you you're not legally allowed to say or think "I don't accept that." No one is going to strap you down and FORCE you to watch two men hold hands.* At WORST, you're being asked to NOT throw a tantrum (or an object) if you see homosexuals behave affectionately in public. I'd like to think MOST people A.) can manage that or B.) wouldn't consider it some kind of affront to their personhood.
It's called "compromise" a word which means "a settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions" according to my dictionary. In reality, we don't have a problem with it, but we do have a problem with the gay rights agenda pushing itself into our religious practices and destroying the meaning of the word marriage for many of us. Therefore, we cede the government's role in marriage, and they cede the ability to alter religious practices and the definition of marriage. No one is entirely happy, but we can all have registered civil unions and be equal under the law.
And the issue only came up when it seemed that the government was going to seriously put itself on the side of violating religious freedoms in this country, something that this country was founded upon, even more than any gay rights agenda.
The tolerance on display in your statement is breathtaking. I'm glad you have the maturity to handle dissenting opinions and to take them in, analyze them, and digest them for what they mean. Conservophobe!
"No one is entirely happy, but we can all have registered civil unions and be equal under the law."
Fair enough… though you realize it won't work, right? Introduce it and you'll have THOUSANDS of planning-to-marry 'straight' couples ready to raise hell that they've now lost the "right" to do so because you wanted to "stick it" to the gays. Just sayin, that's how it's going to go down.
(continued)
(continued)
"And the issue only came up when it seemed that the government was going to seriously put itself on the side of violating religious freedoms in this country"
While allowing that there are some gay marriage proponents who at least in part support it because they see it as a way that THEY can "stick it" to traditional religion (I know I sure do) this has for awhile struck me as a MAJOR reach of an argument. The government doesn't force Churches to perform interfaith weddings or marriages made difficult by prior divorce, so why would or COULD it be able to start now with this? My feeling is that many who have this fear are conflating THEIR "right" to not have people look down on them for speaking negatively about homosexuals with their Church's "right" to follow it's own marriage customs.
"All this in the name of freedom. If no one noticed before where the Enlightenment philosophy of unbridled tolerance contains the seeds of its own destruction, it should be obvious now."
Chaotic freedom is generally preferable to peace through repression. A society or system that cannot stand if it's people are free cannot stand, period.
Not trying to be a wise guy but did you spell the word writing like that for any particular reason?
Maybe it's because the adrenaline was flowing in which case I get it.
I wish I were that clever! Just a typo…the bane of the semi-literate!
Hey guys, I have a problem.
Some friends of mine from Drama Club at school are doing this play on June 12th and they have invited me to come see them. But the show is the "Larmine Project" which is about Matthew Sheppard and prejudice and hate. Can anybody tell me exactly what this play is and its contents? And should I go see it?
Thank you
My opposition to gay marriage is not rooted in religion, though I am religious. It's based upon my personal freedom. I know that may be difficult to understand, it sure isn't easy for me to explain. But what the hell, let me give it a shot!
I'm a heterosexual male, married to a heterosexual women. We have a daughter, a dog, a cat, a small house, some fish. Basically every day, average Americans.
Now suppose I want to be a smart ass.
Suppose my wife and I attend every gay get together in our part of the nation (upstate NY). And further more, suppose when we go, we demand to be called a same sex couple.
Ludicrous, isn't it? I know.
Now suppose some of the people at those parties think we're pretty strange, but don't mind, and humor us. But others won't. They refuse to call us a same sex couple, because, obviously we aren't, we're just demanding people call us a same sex couple.
So what do I do? I get me a lawyer and sue them, I say they are discriminating against us, and trampling on our civil rights! And then we find some nice court that agrees with us. Now where ever we go, everyone we meet has to either call us a same sex couple, or else, I'm dragging their asses back to court and suing the crap out of them.
As I said, it's ludicrous. But that's how I see the issue. It's not about couples, it's not about civil rights, its not about discrimination. it's about the definition of an extremely old concept that western civilization was built on, the nuclear family, and gay marriage proponents, want to use the implied threat of government force to make me change my definition of marriage to suit them.
If all gay marriage proponents wanted was the spirit of marriage, they'd settle for civil unions with the same status as married couples. But they don't want that. It's not enough for them to see themselves as married, the want to force every one else to publicly state they are married. And to me that's an incredibly dangerous prospect. When a handful of appointed judges, sitting behind locked doors, are free to rearrange every American's concepts and definitions, no one and nothing is safe.
I've heard Abe Lincoln was credited with saying, if a dog has four legs and one tail, and you call his tail a leg, does the dog now have five legs?
You must be logged in to post a comment.