stevendedalus stevendedalus

I Believe It’s Called Pride

I Believe It’s Called Pride

There are some people who will seldom if ever admit they were wrong. Ann Coulter surely would never apologize to the 9/11 widows; the detestable anti-war bloc that demonstrates against families burying their war heroes have no regrets. Gays will not admit they’ve gone too far in their Me-ism craze to tread on the majority’s sanctity of marriage, rather than to limit their cause to simply equal rights. Liberals refer to Conservatives as fascists while communist is the Conservative call-word for Liberals. George W. true to form of any president would never announce that Iraq was a big mistake. Few Democrats admit the wrong of their vote to go to war. A timetable is construed as "cut and run" while "stay the course" is seen as pure folly. 

Egos driven emotionally by unenlightened presuppositions rarely see the path to self destruction.

 

Copyright © 2006 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: June 16, 2006.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com

9,581 views 27 replies
Reply #26 Top
Brave attempt, J.I. to get a reasonable discussion going - and Stevendedalus is one of the 'liberals' here!

Two completely separate things are being conflated here: the contract of marriage (a concern of the state) and the 'sanctity' of marriage (a religious idea).

The state has no more right to withhold recognition of marriage to same sex couples than it did withholding voting rights from women and black people. This is much more clearly understood in Europe and Canada (and is even being discussed in Asia!!!), but Americans still seem to be a bit more uptight about it, so expect to see gay marriage recognised in Cambodia before it is fully implemented in the USA. (Seriously; the former King has been arguing in favour of it there). Arguments about polygamy, incest and marrying horses are irrelevant. Some people argued that giving the vote to women would automatically lead to votes for children too. The problem with the 'slippery slope' argument is that it falsely posits that any change fatally undermines our ability to draw the line.

As to a religious definition of marriage - and its 'sanctity', that is a matter for individual churches and religions to decide on. No church should be 'forced' to conduct gay marriages that it strongly disagrees with for scriptural, traditional or theological reasons. Happily, no one is really suggesting that they be so. Religious affiliation is voluntary - if you join (or remain in) a religious body, you accept its rules; membership of the state is not.

As to those uptight enough to be irked by having gay sexuality 'thrust in their faces' (I imagine this is a reference to OTT carnival floats at gay pride parades; otherwise it could simply be irritation at any gay visibility at all), there is help on the way...

... I have argued before, but its worth saying again, all the best arguments for gay marriage are conservative. More convincing than any left-wing 'equality' argument, is the fact that, allowed to live lives of shameless hedonism and irresponsibility, once legal and social constraints were finally loosened, many gay men and women have discovered an essential emptiness in endless clubbing, partying and promiscuity. Instead they seek authentic relationships, commitment and fidelity. Of course if you are 'born again', you know that the answer is for these poor people to pray to Jesus to make them straight, but here on Planet Earth, where we realise that homosexuality is not simply going to go away, we need another strategy...

... prison, assault, mockery, social ostracism and the hangman's rope didin't really work. The brighter conservatives (including David Cameron, the new Tory leader in the UK) have concluded that making gays 'respectable' is the way to go. Gay couples with mortgages, rose covered cottages, and white picket fences, going to bed at 10 pm after a mug of cocoa, will only help to strengthen a traditional lifestyle (including faithful monogamous marriage) which many heterosexuals are abandoning .

To return to the "they thrust their sexuality in our faces" argument, the fact of the matter is that it is sexuality in general that is thrust in our faces in most western societies, and to choose to only get upset about one form of it speaks volumes.
Reply #27 Top
Frankly, I couldn't care less if gay couples are married by the pope. Long ago I argued that stable relationships among gays would be better and healthier for them so they can grow their love. Still, I believe they would further their cause more if they cooled their demonstrative behaviors and gradually released themselves into society. They have been invisible for so long that straights also need time to adjust. Why do you suppose Branch Rickey chose Jackie Robinson and not an even better player from the Negro League? The majority needs pampering. "Reasonable discussion" is not forthcoming in an emotionally charged issue. I think I showed great patience with Icareus, even though I knew he was gadflying me; for he knew perfectly well that it was not my personal position that "marriage" of the same sex is offensive, despite my charge that they misread the public's reaction to their all or nothing demands.