Topic: Another reason Fighting over Gay Marriage isn't worth it

[Weisshaupt]

...And our children respond, "But yes daddy, we do." The reality of homosexuality being sanctioned by the fundamental societal institution of marriage will undermine any possible teachings against it that a parent may seek to impart. The child will look at what the parent says and hold it up to the reality of the world around them and conclude that the parent is completely out of touch with reality.

The failure of such unions is the reality your children will see. The reality of any "sanction" will be secondary.  But how is a civil marriage contract a sanction?  Its an agreement between two people of the type than can be had today.  The only difference is one is called Marriage, and the other is a private contract. A sanction is given by changing the definition of a  word?  Seakittens.

The law already recognizes such unions when set up in a certain way.  

Churches recognizing those unions and acting accordingly would be a sanction. Individuals recognizing those unions and acting accordingly would be a sanction. Attempts to force private individuals, corporations  or groups to act as if they  recognize those unions and act accordingly is what we must fight. How many things are "sanctioned" by our larger society that the Amish reject? How do they do it and continue , if such is impossible?

I would argue that in fighting against homosexual marriage, WE ARE setting and enforcing the moral standards for our community.

I agree. You are. Using the power of government,   you are attempting to force the moral standards of your community upon people who ARE NOT members of your community.  The liberals are doing the same. One Community to Rule them all.

Our government in its intended form is supposed to set a framework in which individuals pursue happiness and prosperity under the rule of law while doing no harm to others, and to do so at the behest of the people. Individual liberty was never intended to indicate the creation of a society without a framework. Family is society's most basic framework. It's institutional support does no harm to those who do not partake.

I believe that is precisely what they are complaining of- they want the institutional support of the society in forming a "family" as they would wish it defined. If the government's role is to promote a framework that allows individuals to pursue happiness, and these individuals feel that a family  framework formed around a same-sex couple is conducive to their happiness, is the government then not obligated to support such a framework, rather than denying them that support? Do families formed around a single-sex couple do harm to others, while families formed around the two sex couple do not?  The same could be said of polygamist couples. If consenting adults wish to form a "Family" around more than one wife ( or husband) - a practice that at one time was VERY COMMON in human societies -as a rich man could take care of more than one woman, and her progeny. In our current  community, that is considered perverse, but its historical track record shows that it too  is a viable system in which individuals can pursue happiness.

I am playing a bit of devils advocate here, but it seems you are making the case FOR allowing civil recognition of same sex couple here, rather than against.

As I said earlier, I am less concerned with the moral implications of homosexuality and the immoral message homosexual marriage sends than I am about what practical harm such a paradigm shift will inflict upon the society. A society that normalizes and institutionalizes perversion cannot stand. I couldn't care less about the perverse, but I care a great deal about the society.

I am a bit confused. Isn't the assertion that the immoral message being sent presents the "practical harm"? If not, what, specifically, is the "practical harm" to the society of allowing sub-groups pursue their own happiness in the the family units that seem most conducive to them? Is polygamy a perversion? Why were entire societies successful with that system then? Is Polygamy implicitly incompatible with a society that believes in monogamy? If so, why?

If our government is going to provide a "sanction" to promote  one type of family group, is it not required to sanction others? Or is only the pursuit of happiness of certain people the governments concern? If so, why?  Should the government be in the business of doing this in the first place? If it is obligated to provide a framework, who is to decide what the allowed options should be within that framework?

One person's perversion, is another person's pursuit happiness- be it gay sex, hetero-sexual prostitution,  drugs, alcohol or showing your face in public without a burka.

[IronDioPriest]

...I am a bit confused. Isn't the assertion that the immoral message being sent presents the "practical harm"? If not, what, specifically, is the "practical harm" to the society of allowing sub-groups pursue their own happiness in the the family units that seem most conducive to them?...

Read my first post in this thread for your answer. It is not the immorality, but what will be undone in the name of it.

[Weisshaupt]

Read my first post in this thread for your answer. It is not the immorality, but what will be undone in the name of it.

I don't understand what is being undone.

not only will it be given moral equivalence at every possible opportunity; but it will actively be promoted as superior - a protected victim class that garners intrinsic nobility for itself simply for having been victimized and now lauded. One only need look at how homosexuality is treated in the media to see this. Magnify that by a thousand if homosexual marriage becomes the law of the land. "Victims" are sainted by the Left, elevated as paragons of liberal virtue, and become untouchable, beyond reproach.There will be calls for affirmative action to atone for the ages-long persecution of homosexuals. Organizations are already beginning to feel the pressure to place orphaned children into homosexual homes, and to make no distinctions between hetero and homosexual couples. One can presume that based on the progressive model, if homosexual marriage becomes the law, the calls for affirmative action in the adoption of children is not far behind. With no legitimate basis for placing children into heterosexual homes, there will be an effort to "catch up" in a mad rush to place children with homosexuals. Nothing could accomplish the agenda faster or more effectively than a generation of children whose peers are increasingly raised by homosexuals.Teachers in schools will be forced not just to teach children that families are headed by non-gender-specific couples, but that the ones headed by homosexuals are good, normal, natural, and somehow "special". Homosexuality will become an entrenched part of sex education. Every time family is discussed, it will be affirmed that heterosexual couples are not the norm, and that homosexual couples are normal.

All of that is happening now - with or without an official  sanction. Nor do I see how they claim victim status all the more strongly when they get what they want? If anything that would reduce their claims to such victimization.   What is needed is to take control of our children's lives back - and destroy the public school system as the "one Community to Rule them All"  indoctrination center that such a system becomes implicitly. As I said - one person's perversion is another's pursuit of happiness.  They should not be allowed to teach your child that homosexuality is normal. However, it does not follow that they shouldn't be allowed to teach their own children that.

Given the data on Homosexual divorce rates, I don't have high hopes for Homosexual families becoming a good place to rear children. However, Heterosexual couples can divorce as well.

[charlesoakwood]

If not, what, specifically, is the "practical harm" to the society of allowing sub-groups pursue their own happiness in the the family units that seem most conducive to them?...

Subordinate groups submit themselves to the dominant group, these homosexuals
do not want to subordinate themselves they what to dominate. 

Jim and Jack co-habitating is not a family unit. 

Sperm in the lower intestine is unnatural, period.

I agree. You are. Using the power of government,   you are attempting to force the moral standards of your community upon people who ARE NOT members of your community.

We exist under the Law and authority of God.  Our Declaration of Independence and Constitution are under the authority of God if homosexuals or any other special interest group cannot abide by that they are welcome to SDASTFU or leave, that's their two best options.

[IronDioPriest]

...Nor do I see how they claim victim status all the more strongly when they get what they want? If anything that would reduce their claims to such victimization....

You mean reduce their claims to victimization like Blacks have? And feminists? You mean how they got what they wanted and then stopped claiming to be victims and demanding special treatment and additional "rights"? C'mon.

Forgive me Weisshaupt, but your notion that liberal victim groups become satisfied when they achieve their initial primary goal of equal rights because they no longer have anything to bitch about is naive. The radical queers will be the most egregious of them all. They will have their perpetual grievance pimps. You know it's true. All we must do to recognize this is to look at what they've done in the past.

Again, it is not the immorality of homosexual marriage to which I object the most strongly. It is what would be unleashed in its wake. This issue needs to be decided, decisively, once and for all. The queers mean to see that it is decided in their favor by whatever means necessary. Opponents mean to see that it is decided against them according to the rule of law. Radical homosexuals need to be placed back into the shadows, along with their Marxist benefactors.

[Weisshaupt]

If not, what, specifically, is the "practical harm" to the society of allowing sub-groups pursue their own happiness in the the family units that seem most conducive to them?...

Subordinate groups submit themselves to the dominant group, these homosexuals
do not want to subordinate themselves they what to dominate. 

Jim and Jack co-habitating is not a family unit. 

Sperm in the lower intestine is unnatural, period.

I agree. You are. Using the power of government,   you are attempting to force the moral standards of your community upon people who ARE NOT members of your community.

We exist under the Law and authority of God.  Our Declaration of Independence and Constitution are under the authority of God if homosexuals or any other special interest group cannot abide by that they are welcome to SDASTFU or leave, that's their two best options.

I don't see Gods name on the Constitution  anywhere. Our rights are granted by God, and one of those rights is the right of conscience - meaning you have the right to worship the Christian God, The Muslim God, the Giant Spaghetti Monster or Satan.  

This is no different than Muslims demanding every woman  wear a Burka - by the Authority of God.

If a majority is right to oppress the minority, and to ignore their inalienable rights granted by God, then you have defeated the entire purpose of freedom.

[Weisshaupt]

Forgive me Weisshaupt, but your notion that liberal victim groups become satisfied when they achieve their initial primary goal of equal rights because they no longer have anything to bitch about is naive. The radical queers will be the most egregious of them all. They will have their perpetual grievance pimps. You know it's true. All we must do to recognize this is to look at what they've done in the past.

They will bitch anyway.  Its just they loose any rational  moral justification at that point. Even the Race card is getting maxed out now.
They keep trying to charge on it , but it carries no weight

[Predator Don]

If a majority is right to oppress the minority, and to ignore their inalienable rights granted by God, then you have defeated the entire purpose of freedom.


But....I see it as the minority attempting to oppress the majority. I'm not an oppressor. Each state has the right to vote yea or nay. I don't see it as oppression and neither are we ignoring thier rights.,,,,, or feel it is our right to oppress.

To ignore the will of the people is the essense of inhibiting freedom.  What's that saying? Freedom isn't free.


( crap...I really didn't want to comment because I've enjoyed reading the thread so much.)

[Alphabet Soup]

Excellent discussion.

I've been going toe~to~toe with the leftists (and moderates) on this issue and see that I haven't gained an inch of ground. There simply is no "making them see the light".

So I'm going to my alternate position which is:

If you make anything anything then you make anything nothing. If you reduce the value of anything to nothing then anything goes. If anything goes then I gain my greatest satisfaction by exterminating liberals. Who wants to go first?

[EW1(SG)]

No, gawdamnit, they're not going to be allowed to change the definition and the concept for the rest of us. 

What kind of world do you want your kids to live in?  It doesn't matter that you teach them you values or maybe it does, more than you realize, because they'll be living with the values you taught them in a society with which they are the weird aliens.

I guess I have always been that alien, so I guess I don't see it that way. I already don't belong and have accepted that fact, for me and for my kids.

Remember a definition is an abstraction - its a series of sounds that denotes a concept.  They could marry, the state could recognize them as such and you and I are still free to see it as a fake "marriage", just as we see through all of the other leftist Word BS.  Its Seakittens.

In the end they will find the institution holds nothing for them - being as it was designed and implemented for heterosexual people with children, and the .01% of the population who can make it work on gay terms,   let em. We have so many more  important battles right now that what the 1% of the 1% do shouldn't be taking up our time. The numbers aren't significant enough to change anything - the understanding of the word, the acceptance in polite society, or the perception of the institution. If we took this off of the table, how much fervor would these demons loose?

Take the wind out of their sails. Let them marry and find that they can't hack it. You wanted to live by our standards, well fine, here they are.  I agree we should be uncompromising about the standards to which they must be held to, but lets watch them try and Laugh as they fail in their fake marriages - they don't have what it takes to succeed in a real one, and these numbers prove it. Like the lone terrorist who demands to treat with governments,  we have given these gay A-holes too much power over the narrative.

I'm just ornery enough that sometimes things like a simple definition are enough to cause me to dig my heels in.  This would be one, simply because I hate having the language changed out from underneath me.  Especially for as simple and fundamental concept as boy-girl-boy-girl...I have enough trouble figuring out where everybody is supposed to sit at the dinner table already.

But that ISN'T what this is about.  Not really.  This is a two parter.  First is recognition.  The gay marriage folks are bound and determined that the rest of us should "recognize" them, and shower them with affectionate attention.

I'm just not interested.  I just want the rest of y'all to leave me alone, and I am going to do that for you...whether you want me to leave you alone or not.  I'm just not interested in clapping my hands together and shouting "Oh my!  What a cute couple!"  Mostly because they usually aren't.  I just don't care enough.  Even to lavish hurtful emotions on them.  So I just am not the least interested in codifying a special social recognition for gays that has been the bedrock of societies since we started banding together in caves.

Secondly, I am trying to reduce the cost of government by making it smaller...and that includes things like marital benefits to employees sucked out the public trough that ought to be handled privately.  Would certainly make the health insurance merry go round much easier to navigate if the gubmint didn't mandate who got what coverage paid for by ... somebody else.  And that's even BEFORE you start adding "special" classes of beneficiaries.  Because sure enough, somebody is going to be left out, and then we'll have to include them too...into the list of groups that deserve "special" recognition and benefits either paid for or mandated by a government.

So, if gay marriage becomes the norm, I want the "right" to posthumously marry my dead cat.  After all, he should ha' been entitled to free medical care from my insurance plan, just like my wife (of the opposite sex).  And my "relationship" with my dead cat outlasted my relationship with my "significant other" by about 13 years...quite possibly making the cat the only real significant other in my life. 

[Weisshaupt]

But....I see it as the minority attempting to oppress the majority. I'm not an oppressor. Each state has the right to vote yea or nay. I don't see it as oppression and neither are we ignoring thier rights.,,,,, or feel it is our right to oppress.

A minority has been trying to oppress the majority - IDPs concerns are not illusions. They wish to indoctrinate our children, force our churches to recognize their unions, force employers to cover them with insurance, and in general force others to act as if they accept them.  All wrong, and all oppression. But they will be trying to do that regardless of if we recognize and protect their union as a civil contract. Be it called a Marriage, a civil union, a partnership - whatever. The term itself is meaningless. If they called it Marriage we would still use the term "Gay Marriage"  -the point is there will be fewer foot soldiers in their army - less to motivate them into the streets.  IDP is right there will be no stopping the whining, because the professional  left is completely unconcerned with reality.  Individuals however, are, and I don't think demonstrating the disaster that is Gay marriage is likely to win more converts to their cause.

The State level is a better place to handle it, but in the end you are using state power (and money) to encourage one form of family over another - helping some pursue their vision of happiness, over others.  Reality can have the final say over what makes a happy family.


 

[Weisshaupt]

If you make anything anything then you make anything nothing. If you reduce the value of anything to nothing then anything goes. If anything goes then I gain my greatest satisfaction by exterminating liberals. Who wants to go first?

Words are not the thing. Just because I call a gay union Marriage, does not make it the same s a heterosexual marriage. Words are abstractions and they are useful only so much as they represent reality.  X=1. Y=2.  1 and 2 remain  the same even if I decide tomorrow that X=2 and Y=1.  Communication and understanding become more difficult, but 1 is still 1 and 2 is still 2, regardless  of what name is used.  A rose by any other name ..

[Weisshaupt]

Okay, lets give Mr. Madison a Go..

"Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offence against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered. As the Bill violates equality by subjecting some to peculiar burdens, so it violates the same principle, by granting to others peculiar exemptions. …..Because the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ  Religion as an engine of Civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world: the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation. Because the establishment proposed by the Bill is not requisite for the support of the Christian Religion. To say that it is, is a contradiction to the Christian Religion itself, for every page of it disavows a dependence on the powers of this world: it is a contradiction to fact; for it is known that this Religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them, and not only during the period of miraculous aid, but long after it had been left to its own evidence and the ordinary care of Providence. Nay, it is a contradiction in terms; for a Religion not invented by human policy, must have pre-existed and been supported, before it was established by human policy. It is moreover to weaken in those who profess this Religion a pious confidence in its innate excellence and the patronage of its Author; and to foster in those who still reject it. A suspicion that its friends are too conscious of its fallacies to trust It to Its own merits. Because experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places. Pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. Enquire of the Teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest luster; those of every sect, point to the ages prior to its incorporation with Civil policy. Propose a restoration of this primitive State in which its Teachers depended on the voluntary rewards of their flocks, many of them predict its downfall. On which Side ought their testimony to have greatest weight, when for or when against their interest? Because the establishment in question is not necessary for the support of Civil Government. If it be urged as necessary for the support of Civil Government only as it is a means of supporting Religion, and it be not necessary for the latter purpose, it cannot be necessary for the former. If Religion be not within the cognizance of Civil Government how can its legal establishment be necessary to Civil Government? What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure &  perpetuate it needs them not. Such a Government will be best perpetuate it needs them not. Such a Government will be best supported by protecting every Citizen in the enjoyment of his Religion with the same equal hand which protects his person and his property; by neither invading the equal rights of any Sect, nor suffering any Sect to invade those of another. ….Because it will destroy that moderation and harmony which the forbearance of our laws to intermeddle with Religion has produced among its several sects. Torrents of blood have been spilt in the old world, by vain attempts of the secular arm, to extinguish Religious discord, by proscribing all difference in Religious opinion. Time has at length revealed the true remedy. Every relaxation of narrow and rigorous policy, wherever it has been tried, has been found to assuage the disease. The American Theatre has exhibited proofs that equal and complete liberty, if it does not wholly eradicate it, sufficiently  destroys its malignant influence on the health and prosperity of the State. If with the salutary effects of this system under our own eyes, we begin to contract the bounds of Religious freedom, we know no name that will too severely reproach our folly. At least let warning be taken at the first fruits  of the threatened innovation. The very appearance of the Bill has transformed “that Christian forbearance, love and charity,” which of late mutually prevailed, into animosities and jealousies, which may not soon be appeased. What mischiefs may not be dreaded, should this enemy to the public quiet be armed with the force of a law?" – Madison –Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments –

[Predator Don]

But....I see it as the minority attempting to oppress the majority. I'm not an oppressor. Each state has the right to vote yea or nay. I don't see it as oppression and neither are we ignoring thier rights.,,,,, or feel it is our right to oppress.

A minority has been trying to oppress the majority - IDPs concerns are not illusions. They wish to indoctrinate our children, force our churches to recognize their unions, force employers to cover them with insurance, and in general force others to act as if they accept them.  All wrong, and all oppression. But they will be trying to do that regardless of if we recognize and protect their union as a civil contract. Be it called a Marriage, a civil union, a partnership - whatever. The term itself is meaningless. If they called it Marriage we would still use the term "Gay Marriage"  -the point is there will be fewer foot soldiers in their army - less to motivate them into the streets.  IDP is right there will be no stopping the whining, because the professional  left is completely unconcerned with reality.  Individuals however, are, and I don't think demonstrating the disaster that is Gay marriage is likely to win more converts to their cause.

The State level is a better place to handle it, but in the end you are using state power (and money) to encourage one form of family over another - helping some pursue their vision of happiness, over others.  Reality can have the final say over what makes a happy family.


 

I see your point and don't necessarily disagree with it....but (there is always a but) I believe at some point in time you draw the proverbial line in the sand, and I realize said line may be different for people.

Unfortunately, legislation seems to be the only option since we can't challenge them to a duel like in Madisons time.

[charlesoakwood]

Yup, that's where he's goin'.