President Barry formally declared war today.
His war is on American/Christian/Western Culture. And he has declared himself the enemy.
It remains to be seen whether he is damaged more by his prior flip-flopping on the issue, or by his alignment with the radical homosexual agenda.
8 comments:
Oh come on.
There is no intellectually serious argument against allowing gay marriage that doesn't rely upon forcing one's religious beliefs on others.
It's perfectly fine to believe being gay is a sin, just as it's perfectly fine to believe that drinking alcohol is a sin. In each instance no citizen should be compelled to engage in the "sinful" activity, nor should any citizen be precluded from engaging in the "sinful" activity. That's liberty - deal with it.
I published the later-submitted version of this comment, as I assume you made a correction. I trust this was your intent.
"No intellectually serious argument against allowing gay marriage that doesn't rely upon forcing one's religious beliefs on others." What are you on? No civilized society in 5000 years has held that "marriage" could be between members of the same sex.
And there is no such thing as "being gay." It's a choice, and one that society is entitled to condemn. It is certainly not behavior that society is required to endorse and affirm.
And no one is talking about precluding that particular activity. This debate isn't about that at all. The Fourth Amendment protects the ability to engage in deviant sexual activity in private. But some deviants are not satisfied with mere tolerance. It's about whether society accepts it.
Whatever else this is about, it's not about "liberty." It's about license.
Sorry, it's difficult to tell if my comment has been submitted or I've failed the captcha.
Even if being gay is a choice (a position I disagree with, but I'll grant for argument's sake), it's a choice undertaken by consenting adults.
As with my alcohol example, many faiths prohibit consumption of alcohol, but the state still licenses establishments to sell liquor and, here in Va, sells it itself.
I fail to see a good public policy reason to forbid gays the right to marry. Those states that have permitted it have been done no harm (in fact, marriage is arguably healthiest in the northeast), and those people affected are happier for it.
As for the "no civilized society in 5000 years" argument, I'd say two things. First, marriage has undergone significant transformations over those 5000 years. Second, who cares? What is the harm done by expanding this category?
No apology necessary. I was hit with a bout of spam a few years back, and had no choice but to impose some form of security. I just want to make sure that you're intended words are getting there.
Words matter. Like your repetition of the phrase "being gay." Like the word "gay," for that matter.
As for the choice issue, I've conceded, the Fourth Amendment protects homosexuals' practice of their bad choices. You (and other advocates for the radical homosexual agenda) have offered up no good reason why society should validate and affirm them by redefining marriage to mean something it's never meant (and whatever it has been, it has NEVER been between members of the same sex).
Your lack of humility in light of civilized human experience is appalling.
Just because you fail to acknowledge the good and sufficient reasons for discrimination between and among certain relationships does not mean that each is as valid as another.
I'm not sure it's a lack of humility so much as it's simply a pragmatic attempt to more fully guarantee the pursuit of happiness for all Americans.
Put straightforwardly, grammarian and historical objections aside, what is the actual harm that would come to anyone if gay marriage were to be legalized?
Yeah. Pragmatic. Right. The word that the far Left uses to camouflage its agenda.
What harm? It mainstreams sexual deviancy. And be forewarned: insults and belittlement do NOT get published. Choose any rejoinder carefully.
I apologize if anything I wrote gave the appearance of being insulting or belittling - while I disagree strongly with your position, I respect your desire and willingness to engage in civil debate.
I think we've reached the crux of our disagreement. I also agree that legal gay marriage would mainstream the behavior you term deviant. I have no issue with that, and you do.
I'd suggest that it might not be the role of government to determine what consensual "deviances" are to be mainstream and which aren't.
To be clear, you didn't. Having engaged this debate with others over the last few days, however, I wrongly anticipated that you might do so. I commend you for refraining from doing so.
"I'd suggest that it might not be the role of government to determine what consensual 'deviances' are to be mainstream and which aren't."
Possibly. However, if that is the case, then redefining marriage to do so fails your appropriate "role of government" test. No one is talking about PRECLUDING consensual deviances --- that bridge was crossed years ago, and the Fourth Amendment protects and always protected the private practices of deviance --- what is at issue here is the demand for PUBLIC AFFIRMATION of them.
Post a Comment