Comment thread data dump incoming:
APRIL 5, 2014 AT 7:50 PM
This is getting pretty scary. I’m old enough to remember when the gay rights movement seemed to consist of no more than a plea for tolerance. It now seems they only wished to be tolerated in order to grow strong enough to become intolerant themselves. The tolerated will no longer tolerate tolerance! Tolerance is intolerable to the tolerated. Anyway. Can someone out there help me to wrap my mind around the whole idea of how not allowing people of the same sex to marry is discrimination? No one is stopping any one of them from getting married right? They just don’t like the rules. Suppose the issue was driving. If we refused to allow Asian Americans to drive, that would certainly be discrimination. But what if a group of people got together and said, “We are Speeders! And like Sammy Hagar, we can’t drive fifty-five! We were born this way.” One might reply to such a person, “You are welcome to drive if you want to, but you must follow the rules. You must obey the speed limit.” To which the speeders might reply, “We only want to drive fast! We can’t stand to drive slow. It is odious to us. Why do you hate us. You are discriminating against us.”
I’m sure there is a better analogy out there, but this is the best I could come up with. Is anyone out there having an intelligent conversation about what marriage is for? Why our forefathers set it up as they did? It seems to me it isn’t really a right at all. By that I mean, it was meant to benefit society as a whole, not just the couple who marry. Perhaps it has changed so much since the founding of this country that nobody really knows what the purpose of it is anymore. I wonder how many of us would want to marry if the laws regulating marriage were the same as they were in 1800. Now it’s just something that people who have sex get to do? Its just a tax credit for sexy people? What about people who don’t have sex, or don’t have any prospects of finding someone who wants to have sex with them? What if two sisters are both widowed and still have children from their previous relationships? Perhaps they might want to stick together because they love each other and enjoy being together. Do they get to get married too? If not why not? Because they’re not having sex? What a mess.
Douglas Ernst says:
APRIL 6, 2014 AT 12:34 AM
In a recent post I talked about language, and how the left likes to muddle it until no one knows what the heck is going on. “Taxes” becomes “revenue generation” or some such ridiculousness, for example. The same thing applies to marriage. When you start trying to really talk about what marriage means and how that applies to the culture at large, they balk. They turn it into the “bigots” versus the people who just want “equal rights.” Well yes, I hate to inform my leftist friends, but I’m for equal rights too — but we can’t really talk about equal rights until we both define marriage.
The liberal litmus test for marriage seems to be “Do the people who want to get married love each other? If yes, then the union they want to form should be called a marriage.”
My personal opinion is more along the lines of Carl. In terms of a legally binding contract that can be recognized by the state, I’m not opposed to people entering into such agreements. If I essentially say I am in favor of civil unions while opposing a redefinition of marriage into something that neuters it as a credible force for shaping civil society in ways closer to its highest ideals…how does that make me against “love”?
The government chose to get into the marriage business, but it has zero claim to change its more religious definition willy-nilly.
I tolerate all sorts of behaviors that I do not agree with. I treat everyone I interact with on a daily basis with respect and kindness until the give me a reason not to. And even then, I try my best to be patient and understanding. It seems as though on this issue I am asked to not only be tolerant of a particular behavior, but to be an advocate for it as well. I’m supposed to celebrate it. And if I don’t, I’m somehow a bad person.
We are going down a very scary road when a man can be forced from his job because his public policy preferences are not in line with the politically correct pervading “wisdom” of the day.
APRIL 6, 2014 AT 1:24 PM
Talking of taxes, in the UK our tax authority calls taxpayers “customers”
Surely Customers should be able to take their custom wherever they want?
APRIL 6, 2014 AT 4:31 PM
It’s a very scary road indeed. I don’t it’s right that someone should be forced from their job and ostracized from society forever because their viewpoints on this or any other issue are different from PC group-think. They like to complain about “bullies…” well, the only people I see being actual bullies are the gay rights lobby.
They like to change words to suit their own agendas and even then, when you press them for a definition, they don’t have one. If you don’t agree in lockstep with them on this or many other issues, you’re labelled a “bigot” and try to destroy you.
Well first off, in reply to Edward, this incidence and all of those connected to it isn’t more than 20% of the Left’s true total power. It may be more than 10%, I’ll grant that at this time (I didn’t in 2008, since the LEft hadn’t yet mobilized to that extent), but wait until people see the 20%. They will be surprised then.
To address the main question, the Left doesn’t want equal rights or homosexuals to have their problems solved. If the problems are solved, how is the Regime going to get power by making the homos obey? If homosexuals don’t feel discriminated and have all they need on their own, why would they sacrifice free will to obey the Leftist Totalitarian Regime and become human slaves? In return for what, they would get nothing for it, not even the promise of something.
So if civil unions became something real, the homosexual activists would lose their control over their homosexual slaves. So they can’t let civil unions exist. So they demand what is beyond the pale, something they know the orthodox and traditional society can’t accept, as a way to use the backlash to coral homos into the right plantation pen.
So it’s not about making things better for homosexuals, it’s not about defining marriage, it’s not about equal rights. For the Leftist alliance, it’s always about Evil and about Power.