The real debate about gay marriage is about defining "normal". The "gay" lobby (do they have a more PC term to describe themselves) wants to compel America to accept a gay partnership as a 'normal' thing, and are accusing everyone who doesn't do so of ... guess what... no not racism but close... bigotry.
I've said this many times. I don't care who anyone is sleeping with (so long as it isn't someone living in my house). I am as disinterested in the sex lives of homosexuals as I am heterosexuals. I have zero energy available to devote to it. I simply don't care. I have many, MANY, better things to concern myself with than the sex acts of others. So how I could possibly be described as bigoted on a topic about which I possess absolutely no opinion?
The secret answer to this riddle is, of course I'm not bigoted, nor is the rest of the roughly 60% of American who are opposed to gay marriage - as I am. What we are concerned about on this topic, is being bullied by a small minority to redefine our definition of 'normal'. The gay lobby is trying to compel us through the courts to call a cat a cow. The two are simply not equivalent in my view.
With that said though, there are ways in which marriage is treated differently under the law which I think some change might be appropriate to allow homosexual couples to fully participate in society. The tax penalty for one. If you want to pretend to be married, you're going to have to pay for the privilege, just like we 'actually' married folks. Areas like hospital visitation and other 'restrictions' should be repealed to allow homosexual couples to avoid special (arguably negative) treatment. But that doesn't mean I'm going to call it a marriage. You may call it what you like and I have no objection. But don't think for a minute I'll let you compel me to think of it as 'normal'.
It may inevitably be common, like single parenthood. But it won't be 'normal' to me. It will be a state of disadvantage for the children that actual marriage is designed to benefit - just like single parenthood is. It will be an example of someone who is putting their own satisfaction and their own selfishness ahead of the child's benefit - just like all those 'parents' who see their children as little more than an accessory. the only difference will be that it will be obvious at a distance.
I don't think single mothers should have their children snatched away by the state, and I don't think gay couples should either. But marriage isn't about who you're sleeping with, it's about children. And a small minority does not get to define the way the majority see's it's own traditions. You may call a yarmulke a 'beanie', but don't think you'll ever convince the rabbi or the rest of the congregation to do the same. Gay 'marriage' is not normal. It's an artifice designed to placate the ego's of the participants, and I am not going to think of it (or treat it) as a 'normal' circumstance no matter what the courts say.
14 comments:
CNBC is celebrating - or at least their DJ is...
Add gay marriage to the damage done via the passage of no-fault divorce and marriage will become more of a joke to young men. IMO, marriage is a necessary component to grow a society (both in population and in technological advances). Marriage acts as a 'stabilizing force', providing an environment to raise children into civilized adults... instead of barbarians. This is why marriage (the traditional kind) has been practiced for thousands of years in advanced societies.
I have been a landlord for almost two decades now. I ended up with a lot of gay / lesbian tenants (NYC metro area). Some observations:
Gay men have a VERY high incident of drug / alcohol abuse. I had a couple of decent gay tenants, but went through hell keeping roommates. Too many of them would get strung out. Hard, hard, hard drug and alcohol use.
There is also no such thing as monogamy with gay men.
One of the saddest incidents I witnessed was my one tenant having to leave an apartment he loved because his ‘spouse’ decided he was too old and he could go bang teenagers. He couldn’t afford the rent on his own.
Gay men don’t want marriage. They want weddings and access to corporate paid spousal health insurance.
on a side note: Tom, since you are into the bear hunt question, thought you might enjoy this vid:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4c2_1336611357
when do they wheel out Jim McGreevey as the poster boy?
Eventually when Gay Marriage becomes supreme Law, institutions that deny access to marriage will raise constitutional challenges.
In 20 years - even the Catholic Church in the USA will be forced to accept it.
Why? imagine a Supreme Court consisting entirely of people like Ginsberg, Kagan, Sotomayor and Hillary Clinton.
YOu don't need to win the Presidency to achieve an outcome.
You just need time and lots of skulls full of mush.
2 good posts.tom last nite they showed the progression of acceptance for gay marriage. in 04 ?70% opposed. now only 45%.thus odumass goes with 55% majority to get their votes. it seems as marriage either disappeared or at least the man just left in the black community everything broke down....what is left isnt pretty. at least in the gay community there wont be a single mom on welfare with 8 kids and still having more....i have to agree with ikaika and his last 3 lines..skulls full of mush.well said.
Hi Tom,
Has anyone buzzed you the WaPo hit job on Romney from the 1960s, which coincidentally has a presumed gay "victim"? This election is going to be the standard against which others are measured in terms of negativity, absurd MSM gyrations, and demagoguing. All the special interest food groups will have their time at the trough because BO needs every last one, living or dead, to avoid the cheap veal outcome.
Excellent assessment of the situation I think Bzod. He's got a billion dollars of union cash and apart from one middle eastern dead guy, no record to run on.
they're going to have to search the trunk of Romney's car several times a day to make sure nothing (or no one) has been planted there.
The only thing we can hope is that it has the same effect on youth today as the Clarence Thomas hearings had on the kids then.
the wapo article will reign supreme for a month. and then on nightly for commercials... mitt= homophobe.. with brains for mush itl work.... i just cant give the american voter-on average- any kudos.... theyl vote where the most goodies come from and stick their heads back in the sand.. that means fomo fomo fomo.. tom as to clarence thomas. id bet you >75% of youth havent got a clue who he is or what he went through... fomo fomo.... toast.
If this was really about equal protection under the law, the gay community would be working the to *STRENGTHEN* the domestic partnership laws most states have, and the atheist groups would be campaigning to get the *GOVERNMENT* out of the religious sacrament of marriage.
Imagine if everyone who wanted to get "hitched" had to go down to the courthouse to sign a legal contract, and then only those who wanted to get "married" then went to the church of their choice. Each state would be free to specify who could and couldn't get hitched, and each church could decide who could get married, and they could be in complete disagreement.
Marriage is not about children, it's about commitment to a partner. Plenty of couples are childless by choice or by biological compulsion. And it's misleading to show a photo from a gay pride parade to illustrate mainstream gays.
What about my post convinced you that I was trying to portray them as mainstream gays?
Also, that you or some other couples you know, or for that matter anyone in particular thinks that marriage without children is a good idea, has nothing to do with the role of the institution's development in western culture.
Sorry Oleg. We agree about a great many things, but not this.
I think that if people want to get married, they should basically do what gay couples started doing during the height of the AIDS crisis--signing a whole host of legal documents that in many respects created something akin to a married couple--durable powers of attorney, wills, sometimes incorporating to create the couple as a legal entity (making insurance easier), etc. In some countries, France, I think, for one, the couple has to go to the civil authority for a civil marriage and then the church (synagogues, etc.) for the religious one.
My concern over the push for gay marriage takes us down a slippery slope--to polygamy, and so on. I also worry that it will be used as a club against certain religious organizations, forcing them to perform marriages. It's not that I am against a gay couple having the legal rights, responsibilities, protections, etc. of a regular straight couple. I think maybe the way to go is that any couple who wants to have the sort of legal status married couples do now, is to incorporate, or something like that.
Why does polygamy need legal sanction at all? Get a few girls move in together 'three is company' like and do your thing, no one will stop you. So long as you aren't a nuisance to your neighbors no one will even complain.
But if you're looking for legal sanction for any of these cohabitation arrangements, you're really just trying to bully religious institutions and the general public into calling your choice 'normal'.
I for one will never do it, no matter what the courts say.
i agree with Oleg (who's Blog i also read) - the photo you posted is misleading because it makes people think that all gay couples behave in a manner which is decidely out of the mainstream. i dare say that there are many gay people out there that want nothing more than to be able to settle down with and be faifthful to someone who cares about them - just like many straight people. they go to work every day, don't do drugs, they are monogomous, they look just like you or me, and they don't parade about like the photo suggests. why not post a photo of two guys/girls holding hands while watching TV together?
First of all I posted the picture I did to emphasize my point, not yours - which by the way I view as largely irrelevant to my broader point.
Secondly, no one... and I mean that literally... no one at all... will think that all gay people dress like that as a matter of course simply because they saw the photo on this blog. If the two men in the picture were so concerned about the image they would project when people saw them dressed like that, then they really should have thought of that before they left the house.
As to the broader point, if two men want to cohabitate, I certainly won't stop them - I won't even try. If they want to live together monogamously I won't even notice. They can do absolutely anything they like with one another and it literally means nothing to me. for my part I'd like nothing more than to leave them alone to pursue happiness in any way that they choose. I'll treat them with same respect and courtesy I would anyone else that I come in contact with.
But I will not pretend that I think their relationship is "normal". By my reckoning (and that of 70% of the people ever asked to vote on the issue) it is not.
It may very well be a loving, monogamous, long term committed relationship. But that does not make it a marriage. I would argue that it makes it a more stable and probably more productive relationship for the participants. But it does not make it a marriage. You cannot make it a marriage because it does not have the requisite parts.
Now... if they don't care what I have to say about it (and I honestly don't think I would if I were them) then all is well. They can have their loving, monogamous, committed relationship, call it a marriage to whoever will allow them to, and have a happy life.
But I will not be compelled by the courts to treat it as something which I do not believe it to be. All the laws in the world will not convince me that two men or two women are married.
Of course... they do care what I say about it, that's the whole point. What the "gay marriage" movement is designed to do is to force people to accept their definition of marriage over the traditional definition. It's designed to undermine the view of religious institutions and to compel them to accept homosexuality as normal.
But I will not do that. Period.
Post a Comment