Someone Who Likes Gay People and Hates Fast Food in Defense of Chick-Fil-A
I like gay people and — let me be frank — hate fast food. But this nonsense about Chick-Fil-A underscores the reason I’ve been hesitant to indulge my natural libertarianism and plunk outright for gay marriage.
In general, I have no problem with marriage for gays, if it comes about legislatively rather than through judicial fiat. I’ve listened carefully to the arguments of several social conservatives of good will who feel that changing the age-old definition of marriage will weaken a principle pillar of liberty. I’m not convinced — not even convinced that the possibility of such a moral hazard is a compelling reason to keep people from doing whatever they bloody well want with their private lives. As for the ideas that being gay is unnatural or a sin per se — that is, a sin whether it does any earthly harm or not — I reject them outright. Homosexuality seems as much a part of nature as left-handedness and is probably much less annoying when using scissors. And if it is somehow offensive to God, that’s His business: I am specifically instructed to judge not in such matters and tend to my own manifold offenses.
They can already do “bloody well whatever they want,” so one must ask “why do they want to have their civil bonds recognized as “marriage” by the state? They can already bloody well have civil contracts of property and power of attorney. Why pray tell “marriage?”
Indeed they can do whatever they want without legal proscription…..however non government social stigma and ostrazation, discrimination should not be legally proscripted. The right to freedom of association.
This is the Rand Paul argument. People shouldnt be forced to hire other people that they dont trust, like, or approve of.
In this case, Klavan could hire gays, because he likes them or approves of the behavior, to his hearts content, but others could choose not to, if they disapprove of the behavior. This is how all other behaviors are treated. You dont have to hire somebody if you dont like their hobby, or propensity to pick their noses.
This should be clear as day. Coerced tolerance is not tolerance, it is intolerance.
Good points in a complicated topic.
The “issue” I have is my inability to reconcile my faith with my fairness.
I “understand” the (my) Catholic Churches position on 100% of social/sexual issues. If we are indeed Holy, and can in some god-like way create life, that is a hugely profound and powerful responsibility…
So I “understand” and therefore accept the Churches historic positions on abortion, masturbation, pre-marital sex and homosexuality, in the same way I accept their positions on Glutony, Sloth and Greed. They believe we are better than that. That we can and should elevate ourselves beyond physical desires and temporal satisfactions.
Thus the creation of a life (perhaps mine?) ought NOT to be accidental and/or unintentional…a mere itch that was scratched leading to an “aw shit!” moment of regret and resentment…the uniqueness and singular miracle of a new soul never part of the equation. Every life deserves to be “wanted”, thus all the behaviors surrounding the “activities” associated with sexual pleasure demands a level of reverence that few can now accept in this modern Western World, with all its conveniences right at our fingertips.
Somewhere in between must lie a level mutual respect. I do not believe the Church to be hateful and intolerant in its intentions, but I cannot see HOW a gay person DOENT feel belittled or insulted by their position. But neither can I see how a “kiss-in” of Gay people at a family restaurant WOULDN’T be disturbing to children. I go to Chic-fil-a often with my kids due to their family atmosphere and play area for toddlers.
The Gay Community needs to learn “tolerance” as much as anyone…or better yet, try their brand of “in your face” sexuality at a MOSQUE, and see where that gets them, ya think?
I would support the idea of the gay rights protest at a mosque.
Protest where protest is due.
I would support the idea of the gay rights protest at a mosque.
I’d strongly reccomend including some members of the Pink Pistols…
Question for you as a Catholic, The. Let us suppose that the Homosexuals get what they want with the government recognizing marriage. How long do you suppose it would take a regime, such as Obama’s, to attempt to force the Catholic Church to marry them?
The answer depends on the amount of precision you want – nanoseconds or picoseconds.
I have no objections to gay people being gay in the privacy of their own homes,any more than I object to straight people doing whatever consensual stuff they want to do. Morally,I have no objection to gay marriage. My objection to gay marriage stems from the fact that gay marriage,like single motherhood and female promiscuity, is being specifically promoted and used by radicals within and without our society to undermine the nuclear family,and in so doing, open the path for the subjugation of the individual primarily to the state at this moment.
Now, this sounds like an outrageous statement, but if one were to look at the manifestos of various feminist organizations, the charters of various governmental bodies both American and international, and even the oft-prophetic fiction of writers like Orwell and Huxley, one can see that this has been a goal of very powerful groups and individuals,for whatever reason, for at least 80 years.
Gay marriage is just the latest stone added to the heap that is intended,by powerful socialist forces,to sever the familial bond and replace it with a similar fervent reverence for would-be all powerful dictators or oligarchs.
As such, I will not support gay marriage initiatives. In fact,I will unabashedly oppose them,though I see no harm in gay marriage itself and take no affront from it, just as I would refuse a would-be armed robber in a bank who handed me a rope and told me to incapacitate all the other prospective robbery victims in the building.
Gay marriage activists, disavow and disentangle your allegiances from these powerful interest groups with the goal of subjugating the American people under an all-powerful state. Cease and desist your censure and media driveby operations against your opponents, both religious and secular, and allow open discussion and consensus to resolve these issues peacefully. Only then will I cast my lot for your cause.
Very well said. Clearly distinguishing the gay marrigae issue from the larger agenda that some have co-opted it in service of. I react to what the various mayors have said as just plain abuse of power. They are overreaching; they have NO buisness threatning any legitimate buisness because of the religious, political, or moral beliefs of a buisnes owner. Thats just outside their perview, and they need to know it. I would argue that its ‘always been this way’; those in power excersize privilidge and influence over others. Real progress would be the evolution PAST the typical age old power wielding of ‘officals’, be they elected or otherwise.
The reactions of these mayors needss to be spanked heartily, so as to evolve our political system past what we have been in the past. Its great that this is getting airplay; we need to establish in the collecitve consciousness of America that this is totally unacceptable from our public officials. I see this as essential to avoid the growth of political tyranny.
Please don’t lets have our government try to protect us from expressions some find offensive; thats a sure way to make matters significantly worse. I detest hate speech laws (and I’m Jewish and do know from hate speech); they invest the government with way too much power. One only has to look North to the Dominion (recall the Canadian Human Rights Comissions persecution of Ezra Levant, Marc Stein, and that hapless comedian who said the wrong thing to two ladies) to see the horrible effectis of giving a governmental body the authority to prosecute hate speech. That was a disgusting but enlightening display of governmental hubris.
I have read and listened to both sides.
I vote for traditional nuclear family and against state recognition of gay marriage.
Well who gave government the power to decide what the definition of marriage is in the first place?
If all we need are civil contracts then that is all government should issue.
If marriage is a matter of religious or personal conscience then it should stay there and keep government out of it.
Marriage is a religious thing that is recognized by the government, individual states have common law marriages that are not religious things. As such some religious groups do not recognize common law marriage.
Giving same sex partners the same protections under law as married couples (aka the civil union) was offered as a compromise but rejected by gay activists.
I am perfectly comfortable extending the exact same legal protections to same sex couples as any other married couple, HOWEVER, too many examples of same sex couples using the newly enacted legal marriages as a club to beat down those who do not agree with them in the courts tells me they aren’t about legal equality. Activist groups want a weapon to assault religion. period.
How many national memorials with religious symbols have been ordered removed or covered? (or in some cases removed by vandalism and not allowed replaced)
How many schools are allowed prayer these days?
How many courthouses still have the ten commandments displayed on walls?
How many town squares are still allowed a nativity scene? A Christmas tree?
How many church sponsored medical centers will still be allowed to deny abortions in 5 years?
How many churches will be left after refusing to conduct a same sex marriage 5 years after it is ‘redefined’?
How long do we have before religion is driven completely out of public life, shut away within the 4 walls of a church zoned out past the industrial parks so as not to offend the new “polite” and tolerant society?
Given that quite a few Catholic hospitals will have to close their doors next year due to the HHS mandate, there probably won’t be many left to oppose abortion in five years.
government didn’t define what marriage is. society defined, and decided what marriage is a long time ago, and government came from society.
Yes, exactly. “Society” existed long before “government” (especially courts of law) did, and marriage has existed as a social institution for thousands of years. It has always meant only one thing, all around the world, from the most primitive stone-age tribes to the most modern democratic industrialized societies: the joining of one man and one woman in an officially recognized and approved social bond – not of a monkey and a goat or any other such combination, whether human, animal, plant or fungi spore.
But suddenly, gays and leftists have decided to demand that the status and meaning of “marriage” be completely changed – which is especially ironic and ridiculous since they have spent the last half century attacking and demeaning the institution of marriage. An exact parallel is the same hateful attack they’ve led on the U.S. military, yet suddenly they’ve decided what a swell organization it is, and demand that homosexuals be accepted as war fighters, no matter if it negatively affects their ability to fight wars in any way or not (which of course is the only reason for the armed forces to exist, but that’s irrelevant to them). In both cases, they actually hate the institution, but pretend and say otherwise, as long as they get the power to control and change the natural order of things for their own selfish gratification; and yet smart fellows like Andrew Klavan actually don’t get it.
Let’s all kiss civilization goodbye – Sayonara, suckers!!
Sorry, but no you’re wrong. The Old Testament sanctioned multiple wives (and concubines for that matter) for those rich and powerful enough to afford them. Until it became an issue preventing statehood Utah Mormons were quite content with plural marriage, one husband with multiple wives. Islam today permits and even recommends up to four wives per husband, four being the best choice as it reduces the workload on each wife and discourages them ganging up on the man.
Modern western culture does in general promote the one man one woman relationship, but saying that has been the universal ideal throughout history is simply disingenuous at best.
As Uncle Lar states, polygamy has existed in successful societies in the past. In addition to general guidance, the reality was that many women died in child-birth so a man having multiple wives had a better chance that should one die, their would be someone helping him raise the kids.
However, there has never been a society without marriage between man/woman(women) as the foundational unit. And I don’t think there’s enough data/studies/experience to definitively determine what the ramifications are to children being raised by two men or two women. My experience as a single dad leads me to suspect there will be problems.
By the way, are you talking about gays or straights? I mean, if straights
I rather doubt that many couples who are getting married particularly care about the state recognizing their marriage. The state has an interest, however, because it gets involved in custody disputes over children and child support. I guarantee that no gay couple will ever have a child. They may adopt one, or one of the women may have a child by some man, but no gay couple will ever have a child of their own, at least with current technology. This is why the state has an interest in heterosexual marriage (where there is usually at least a possibility of children) and no interest in homosexual marriage.
If you want to prohibit the state from recognizing straight marriages where there is no possibility of children, I wouldn’t argue the point.
Gays want to be able to marry because they believe that once the state accepts it as normal, so will the people. It is also important for gays that it becomes normal because gays and lesbians are trying to prove to their parents that it is wrong for them to be ashamed and embarrassed about them. That using a mans anus to ejaculate or (please!!!) express love and devotion is no better or worse than coupling with a Woman and, well, doing what comes naturally (which does not include the Woman’s anus). A Woman’s vagina is designed for what it does so well, and her ass, like a man’s ass, is designed to expel shit.
Having the state decide that there is no differences will only hurt the state and further marginalize marriage. You’re very clever Klavan, but you are not very deep (although I loved your Christmas story on abortion)
@ #1 Talon’s Point –
Exactly right! Homosexuals are free to have ceremonies, live together and enter into legal contracts as they wish. I couldn’t care less as long as they don’t bully me into saying it’s acceptable. This is not about marriage. (Wasn’t it the liberals who said, “We don’t need a piece of paper!” in the 60s? But suddenly now homosexuals must have their unions recognized by the state? Come on!)
What homosexuals want is social acceptance of their behavior, and by legal force if necessary.
This flap over CFA proves it. If you so much as mention the slightest disagreement with same-sex marriage/homosexuality, you will be destroyed.
Well said, Andrew.
I do like fast food, but I’ve only been to Chick-fil-A a couple of times. The one near me is off my regular driving routes but is close to a movie theater. The only times I’ve eaten there were before movies. However, I rarely go to movies nowadays because I’ve been boycotting Hollywood leftists. Ironic, eh? I think I’ll stop there tonight.
Like most people, I can be persuaded, but I hate being bludgeoned. High decibel screaming and poo flinging don’t advance your argument, it only makes me dig in my heels. Funny how that works.
Well, the question is, who’s doing the screaming and flinging? I think we’ve got the “ruining it for everybody” syndrome here. Andrew says: “I do suspect — that the movement for gay marriage is nothing more than an assault on freedom of religion and freedom of expression by other means.” Maybe some loving gays really want to be married and they’re actually not screaming and flinging — but the whole issue has been jacked by leftists with an agenda of intolerance. That’s what the left does. Equal rights for all regardless of race, creed or gender –> affirmative action, Ground Zero mosques, and pregnant soldiers.
Exactly. And then the other question is “can ‘reasonable gays’ leave the crazy ones behind?” To my knowledge, at least amid my libertarian friends, they’re as disgusted by this attack on a restaurant owner’s opinions as I am. BUT the media will only listen to “Gay activists” and “Gay leaders.” Who ELECTS these leaders? What population do they represent? Can I just call myself an “Hetro leader”? (Sure I can, but given my politics, the media will ignore me.)
Also for the record, as a professional writer, it was the straight people among my colleagues who were going crazy and screaming to boycott and making stupid jokes. Yes, yes, pathetic desk slaves trying to be “cool” — but that was a great part of the sound and fury.
It’s like the Black Nationalists seizing control of some civil rights groups, and kicking the many reasonable people out so they can get their revenge on whites.
And YOU write about the culture? What a laugh that is. Go ahead. Go for broke on the gay marriage thing. Just don’t think you still have the chops to comment on cutural rot or anything else that is tearing this country apart. What a load of bollocks you turned out to be.
Yeah, my thought, too. Someone who pretends to judge culture (and who writes books for an evangelical Christian publisher, Thomas Nelson)to be so blinkered and confused on issues of sin and sexual licentiousness would be laughable if it weren’t so sad.
Another blogger I can ignore now.
Exactly, I feel the same way. I normally really like and agree with pretty much everything I read on PJMEDIA, but I now know that this is a contributor that I will not be listening to. While I agree with some of what he said, I’ll never age that , homosexuality is anywhere near okay our acceptable, no matter how the media tries to beat me over the head with the idea that it is normal or natural, or not a choice. And I will definitely never support anyone who approves of gay marriage and thinks “it will happen eventually”.
What utter rubbish. Todays turn out across the nation was so outstanding and it shows what I’ve always known, that the majority of America does not approve of homosexuality or gay marriage. I’ll always respect others and treat them how I want to be treated. But it will never mean that i think paraphilia is something natural or that our children should even be remotely exposed to. It would be like saying that we should teach our children about incest and support it and enact laws to protect it, ridiculous.
This entire leftist narrative about Chik Fil A is just another distractive shiny object to avoid focusing on the economy. And yeah, it IS all about their WAR on our First Amendment.
Chick-fil-A for Freedom!
Obama (and his supporters) desperately wants to make the central issue of the campaign gay marriage, as seen from the Democrats supporting Santorum in Michigan, Obama’s sudden “evolution” on the issue, the “Mitt Romney is a bully” nonsense, and numerous other issues suddenly popping up. He knows he’ll get more support there than the economy.
I hear Chick-Fil-A is doing Land Office business, customers lining up around the block.
If what gay activists really want is the power to silence those who disapprove of them, then to hell with them.
The gay marriage thing has always seemed to me to be more about being “in your face” than about marriage per se. Gay pride parades strike me similarly, especially given the outrageousness of what goes on in the streets in San Francisco.
Despite his extremism, this black pastor generally speaks for me
“If what gay activists really want is the power to silence those who disapprove of them, then to hell with them.”
A quotation from the article, a viewpoint I share.
Damn straight (no pun intended)!
Yeah, it’s more about “F-You…” which is why I think Klavan isnt gung ho about publicly supporting Gay Marriage. Same sex marriage where it exists, isnt a very populuar institution to participate in amongst homosexuals.
————-
The highest estimate to date of the proportion of gays and lesbians who have married in any jurisdiction where it is available is 16.7% (Massachusetts).
The survey of marriage statistics from various countries that legally recognize same-sex unions suggests that today between 1% and 5% of gays and lesbians have entered into a same-sex marriage.
In the Netherlands, which has had same-sex marriage as a legal option for the longest period (over four years), between 2% and 6% of gays and lesbians have entered marriages.
Source The Washington Blade
I grew up in gay friendly Laguna Beach.
We all got along, regardless of “proclivities”.
The one long term gay couple I know now has no desire to marry.
Totally agree. I remember when, in the 90s, the gay activists said all they wanted was equal rights to share their partners healthcare plans, be considered as next of kin to partners and that they didn’t want marriage because that was a “straight” thing. Then they got the civil partnerships but of course, that wasn’t enough. It never will be enough for these gay activists. What they do is bully people out of spite.
My big problem with this issue is: What then do we say when the polygamists show up, demanding their “marriage rights”?
Not to mention the folk who’re into bestiality (remember “you can have sex with animals or whatever” from Occupy Wall Street?)…
So that is how all of those Occupoopers were conceived. That answers a lot of questions!
Sex with animals..that wasnt OWS 2012, it was a seriously proposed topic/option by some big wig at Princeton University, 1990-something…
The leftists in academia are way ahead of the curve when it comes to tearing down the culture…those wannabe hipster/intellectuals are only repeating the rubbish they overheard “smarter” people say…
Just like those Che’ shirts and Red Stars the kiddies wear now…like, how long ago was THAT relevant anywhere on this earth?
are we losing our minds or are our minds’already lost?
I cannot recall a time when our government at the federal, state, city level would get caught up in the grill of private opinions of owners who run private enterprises.
americans know that when they don’t like whatever they don’t like about a business or the people who love it, the option is to not shop there.
if you don’t like it, don’t eat their chicken.
of course, there are those who do not agree with gay marriage and even find it abhorrent. yet, no one is stopping homosexuals from marrying. in america, even an unpopular opinion is allowed air. the government has no business getting caught up in the grill and threatening to make our cities chick-fil-a rhein. of all things to carry on about.
we are becoming a country that is unrecognizable. and really stupid.
Our minds are already lost, and have been for some time.
Each day, my jaw drops at some new absurdity that has come to occupy the national consciousness, some topic on which pandering politicians feel compelled to take a “stand’, which so called stands then proceeds to shift with the winds of expediency.
A combination of cowardice & political correctness have infested the national mind and we are now beyond stupid.
This (carefully crafted) mass stupidity is our only problem.
Well, the Democrats have sure as heck lost theirs and need to be run out of office for it on Nov 6.
While I agree that governments should not censor/restrict a business based on the owner’s views, I disagree with you on the issue of gay marriage and adoption. Marriage as a social contract between a man and woman raising kids together has been a fundamental building block for all societies throughout history. We’re embarking on a grand social experiment with no clear idea where it will lead. Change is the mother of risk, I’ll admit I may be overly concerned. However, I think that gay marriage and adoption will be just as destructive as the no-fault divorce and single parent social order we’ve moved towards. George Gilder in his book, “Men and Marriage” does a good job laying out how marriage and it’s tying two people to their children civilizes men and promotes their interest in a civil, stable society. The rise of single mother households has proven to be a disaster in many ways for the children involved, they are statistically at much higher risks for substance/sexual/physical abuse and involvement in crime. Gilder would point to the lack of a father in the home and his function as a role model as the reason.
I’m a single parent. Since I’m male, there isn’t as much data on the lack of a female role model in the home. However, I can confidently affirm that I can’t be both mother and father to my kids. No matter how much I love and sacrifice for them, I can’t make up for that lack of a female, a mother caring for them each day. They are handicapped in a way which can be coped with but not overcome. Sorry, two men or two women raising kids isn’t the same, and it never will be.
However, the cat’s long out of the bag on this one. I think the best compromise is to get government out of marriage. Have people of whatever genders involved enter into civil contracts acceptable to them. Appropriately de-incentivizing breaking the contract. Let marriage be the title for whatever additional religious ceremony they choose to undergo to recognize their union.
I’m inclined to agree with your concerns AND your suggestion for how to handle the question: let EVERYONE have civil unions and let marriage just be whatever religious custom dictates for the people that are in the civil union.
Still, I have other concerns that temper my enthusiasm for that approach. My bigger concern is for what comes next in the battle to destroy society. I’m a “slippery slope” kind of guy. If we decide that it is fine for two men or two women to be legally recognized in the same way as traditional heterosexual marriages, how long will it be before the activists decide to stretch the boundaries further and then further again? We know as surely as day follows night that this will happen so how long will it be until we are expected to accept polygamy and polyandry? Marriages involving adults and children? Marriages involving close relatives like siblings? Marriages between human beings and non-humans? And how will we justify saying no to marriages between men and camels or between brothers and sisters?
It’s clear that it is, in some sense, “discriminatory” to prevent any relationship that someone might want to have legally recognized. So what grounds will override such relationships? Will those grounds justify discrimination against gays and lesbians?
I am terribly afraid that we have already opened the door to any wacky form of “marriage” that can be conceived and that we’ve already invalidated any reasonable ground that might be used to prevent those relationships from achieving social legitimacy. Then what happens to our civilization? If conventional marriage is the vital ingredient in keeping civilization alive as some sociologists believe, then isn’t this anything-goes approach to marriage the suicide of our entire civilization? So which is worse, a little discrimination and unfairness or a collapsed civilization?
Exactly.
The traditions of Judaeo-Christian civilization are in place because they work. To throw them away just to please some bullying whiners who demand everything and contribute nothing is flat-out insane.
Unfortunately, we abandoned one of those traditions in the 1960s and 1970s, as divorce went from perhaps too difficult and lawyer-intensive to way too easy.
Wait until muslims demand their religious rights to marry their 9 year old nieces.
I bet liberals will agree.
The worse problem will be they demand all churches start to perform their marriage ceremonies.
Well, I personally don’t have a problem with a group of adults living together under whatever terms they agree to. There are folks who already have ‘open’ marriages etc. Frankly, I don’t care and don’t see it as any of my business from a legal perspective. I would feel obliged to stand up for my faith in terms of morality, but don’t have an interest in forcing folks to comply with my religious beliefs.
This is where I think the government getting away from marriage and simply enforcing contracts is a better system. Minors by law can’t enter into contracts. Now some may insist there religious beliefs allow them to marry minors – where religious freedom or age of consent laws conflict, the resolution is a matter for the courts to decide. But that’s true already. You may want to start a religion where marriage can occur inter-species, but you can already do that, you just can’t get the government to provide you a marriage license. Animals can’t enter into contracts.
As for forcing all religions to perform all types of ‘marriages’ that disappears if the government recognized relationship is simply the legal contract. Then religions simply perform and administer what they see as the religious aspect which is the marriage.
I normally agree with you, Mr. Klavan, but your attempt to make such a shallow declaration of the ‘bogus’ normalcy of homosexuality is akin to fawning over the sugar-coating on a turd. Your’s is political correctness in its purest form. Seems to me there’s a vast difference between a southpaw and a buggerer. Actually, yours is just a statement of utter stupidity. Shame on you.
Shame on you, Joe. Shame on you. To you, “Gay” is “buggering.” So childish, so immature. I bet you look at women not as people – but through the filter of sex as well.
It’s always the same with moral relativistists and adherents of moral eqivalence. If someone disagrees with your obvious attempts to whitewash perversion, that person is the pervert. I reject your perverse mentality, mtncougar. Shame on you. I’ll have you know I have very high and noble regard for women. I have low tolerance for calling immorality good. In fact, I rise up agaist calling evil good. I reject any notion that I should be ashamed of a mindset and values that ultimately will contribute to the best life possible for future generations. After thousands of years of history, there’s no question that adherence to moral standards is essential for survival. The starting point is knowing the difference between good and evil and having the courage to defend it. How you think (and I use the word, think, loosely)I might regard women is nothing more than a childish, inane retort from one steeped in political correctness. Shame on you.
Well put! You’re my hero!
Two paws up!
You know Joe, that is my sentiment to a tee, but I don’t think I could have delivered it as elegantly and moving as you did. And for the most part, well I feel such a sense of hope and camaraderie with most of the people who post comments on this site, and usually all of the contributors of PJMEDIA.
I tend to get overwhelmed with all the negative things that go on in our society, and the constant bombarding by those that would wish to destroy our nation’s very core structure, beliefs, morals and values. So when I feel the most down, coming here is such a breath of fresh air and such huge encouragement to keep fighting the good fight, and to remember that I’m not as alone as I think I am a lot of the time. So thanks to PJMEDIA, to most readers who post here, and thank you Joe for giving my beliefs such a well articulated focus. They were and are always there, but it’s so hard to properly formulate in such a wonderful context like you did.
I hope this site is always around and I hope to make a lot of nice friends here. Sorry to come as so sentimental, but it can be really tough to keep your chin up when there is a constant onslaught by those that aren’t merely content with having a differing opinion than conservatives and other fighters of untruths, misinformation, evil and injustice. No, that is never enough, it’s only enough when you’ve beaten your opponent into submission and then completely obliterate them. Tolerance and open-mindedness indeed…. So thanks to you all for fighting for what is right.
Agree! Gays don’t bother me per se, just the endless whining and playing the victim card, as here.
I think it’s biological. It poses no threat to regular marriiage. You can’t “make” someone gay, they’re born that way.
Hogwash! People aren’t mindless beasts. You CHOOSE who you sleep with.
Anne, you write, “[Gay marriage] poses no threat to regular marriage.” Perhaps not.
However, you—with the best of intentions, I believe—entirely miss the point (along with all too many people, including Andrew, I’m afraid), which the posters at #8 astutely raise: THE THREAT IS TO THE INTEGRITY, NEEDS, AND SAFETY OF OUR CHILDREN, not to the socially-sanctioned rights of adults to indulge in any kind of sexual liason that might tickle their fancy.
Long before legal gay marriage (here in Canada), we had the protection of increasingly radical rights (via the Charter of “Rights and Freedoms”, put in place by Canada’s Obama, the socialist and Castro’s good friend, Pierre Elliot Trudeau), no-fault divorce, common-law equal to marriage, and no-stigma single parenthood. So, how has this legal and societal approval for increasingly large numbers of CHILDREN NOT LIVING WITH THEIR OWN, BIOLOGICAL PARENTS worked out? By all indications, horribly.
Gay marriage is just one more, decrepit symptom of what I call “adult toddlers” putting their own, selfish needs before the needs of vulnerable children. If children aren’t involved, do what you want (sort of). Once children are involved, both their actual parents and society as a whole had damn well better think about our kids first.
Dream on . . . Because the real issue here is the triumph of adult sexual license over the integrity and safety of our children. As I said before, the adult sexual license horse left the barn long ago: gay marriage has just tagged along and joined the club. But, like the other aberrations I’ve mentioned, gay marriage is definitely not OK.
Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind: there’s lots more heavy weather ahead . . .
I’ve only become opposed to gay marriage because I am so sick and tired of radical gays.
Other than that, I don’t care if they marry, as long as they can’t adopt/raise kids. God or Nature made them that way on purpose- so they couldn’t reproduce!
I also hate fast food Andrew, but I told my husband to take a friend to Chik-Fil-A for lunch today in my place
Greetings:
I just can’t understand why people have a problem with sexual dysfunctionals defining society’s primary sexual relationship.
Well said, 11B40. Many thanks!
And another thing: where does one morally draw the line when illogic and immorality overrule the biological truth of human coupling. If anyone can marry anyone for any reason, then why not have government sanctioned man/dog matrimony, why not a man marrying his own daughter or mother her son or father marry son or daughter marry mother. The gospel according to Klavan says we can all ultimately become inured to opprobrium given enough time and academic brainwashing – as long as we respect the rights of southpaws. What we endorse today, we teach to our children – who will push the limits further. Ethics and morality are part and parcel of the body of human knowledge. Mankind abolishes it at its own peril.
You get it too, joe. Thanks.
(Yes, I’m disappointed in Andrew’s analysis too. Too simple by half.)
Amazing…comparing sodomy with being left handed.
I recently moved to California and due to all the controversy over Prop. 8, have had reason to delve into California law. Prop 8 purported to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The state Supreme Court held that Prop 8 would have no practical effect.
California, you see, already had a “civil union” for, among others same-sex and older couples, that explicitly granted the same rights and responsibilities of marriage.
For California law to be logically perfect, it should record only civil unions, with marriage as a subset of same. As it happens, history shaped the way the law is written.
All the hyperventillating by gays over this Prop. 8 never reached the ultimate issue, namely that the set-up of the law granted them all the rights of married people. And in this country, nobody polices what you call a party, or a companion. So, gays have been free to get their piece of paper that says “civil union,” and get a like-minded minister to “marry” them, and send out any kind of invitations they wish.
One gay judge overturning the peoples’ vote on prop. 8 stands among the most egregious miscarriages of justice of our time.
Sigh – you still don’t get it. Prop 8 was an amendment to their state constitution to define marriage specially as between a man and a woman because gays were not satisfied with civil unions. The gays plan has ALWAYS been to sue and bankrupt churches who refuse to perform the ceremonies.
The church has been under continuous assault in California with religious schools being stripped of their protections while mosques are exempt.
Three times the voters of California voted gay marriage down before they decided to amend their constitution. This should have been foolproof and no court should have been able to touch it. One gay man broke precedence and law to overturn it. He should have been impeached.
I tend to agree with Klavan on this. I don’t see how homosexuals being permitted to be openly homosexual or allowing civil unions (or marriage) amounts to “cultural rot.”
To me, it’s not even an issue of “tolerance” – it’s a matter of individual liberty. If we are to be free of government infringements on our liberties, we should also BE free – and like it or not, that means being free to be who or what we are, born that way or not.
That said, the left is chock full of hate and intolerance, and this Chick-Fil-A boycott is yet another sterling example of that. People are free to be gay, and others are free to have religious objections to a gay lifestyle. No one should be pressured into silence by a bunch of left-wing hatemongers because of their religious beliefs.
One other thing I agree with Klavan on: if gay marriage is to become legal, it should be done legislatively, not by judicial fiat. I reject the whole notion that it’s an “equal protection” issue. After all, everyone is free to marry – so long as they qualify under the legal definition: man & woman. Changing that should be done through the legislature, not the judiciary.
Shouldnt cannibals be free to eat human flesh, as long as they arent killing anybody to get it?
I mean this is a free country, no?
If you can garner enough popular support to pass a law to that effect, and families voluntarily give up their loved ones to be eaten, have at it.
You do realize that few of the gay marriage laws are the result of popular votes, don’t you? The earliest ones were imposed by judges, and the current effort to strike down DOMA is again judge-made law.
Good point: FYI, in Canada, gay marriage was imposed by judicial fiat, not by a vote in any parliament.
Yes, I know that gay marriage is being imposed by judges – and I disapprove. It’s the very definition of legislating from the bench.
As I said, this is an issue for the people and their representatives in the legislative branch, not the judiciary.
You might be interested to know about a case in Germany where a gay man named Armin Miewes advertised for someone to volunteer to be eaten by him. Several people expressed an interest but all but one backed out; the remaining candidate was selected. The selected candidate filmed a declaration that he was sacrificing himself voluntarily. The victim allowed Miewes to cut off his penis and they tried to eat it together but that didn’t work out because it was too tough. Miewes then killed the volunteer. He was eventually arrested but presented huge legal problems for the prosecution. The victim, after all, had volunteered and nothing could be found to suggest the victim had been coerced. This made a murder prosecution problematic in the extreme.
Miewes was finally charged with manslaughter, convicted, and sentenced to 8 years in prison. But a vast public outcry led to an appeal by the prosecution and Miewes was tried a second time on murder. He was convicted and sentenced to life.
Wikipedia has considerably more information on this story at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armin_Meiwes
It’s interesting how these hypothetical situations actually come to pass sometimes….
The dishonesty with arguing this as a “civil right” is that marriage is not a civil right. It is a contract. A contract created to protect the (soon to be) wife. So then, is polygamy a civil right? How does this protect the wife? or wives? The metabolism of a man is to polygamous procreation. Every other religion on earth except islum seeks to protect the wife through it’s institution of marriage, except islum. Not just judaism or christianity. So, if it’s a civil right, isn’t civil disobedience the protocol? Send out invitations, invite family and friends, exchange vows and boom! You have a wedding, just like the one I was invited to twenty eight years ago, so there is nothing they cannot do, or are forbidden to do that they haven’t been doing all along.
I so agree with whoever it is here that said the gayschtappo wants to sue the churches into bankruptcy and/or at least get the government to force churches to perform the “wedding” ceremonies. This is what the first amendment to the constitution is for, to forbid the government the ability to dictate how a religion is to be practiced. “Congress shall make no law….” What about Sandusky, doesn’t he have a right to what he wants to do? nambla?
Someone here as well said that the couple they know from Venice has no intent or design on marriage. I think that is not only the rule, but there are polls taken, unreleased, that show it. Only a tiny minority in Hollywood who seek to acquire more and more power want it, so the trick is to get enough hetero’s to buy into it. I don’t think there is even a majority of homosexuals who support the idea of “gay marriage”. Why no poll results from that demographic?
This isn’t about any “marriage rights”, per se, it’s about lawyers wanting you and me to get their permission to breathe, and the fees and extortion we will never stop paying to get them off our backs. Lawyers=mandarins.
The Lawyers guild- to hell with them.
So….there are limits to contracts after all. This isn’t Germany. There will be civil unions, and there will probably be bi-partisan (pardon the pun) support for it. Polyanimy anyone? Then there will be pre-nuptuals, legal ways to split up the property, and the lawyers can pilfer their piece of the action, and this political fad will be over, will be over, will be over…
On the other hand, why don’t we all just quit bickering and just submit to our new BLTG overlords…
I think you’re a bit off when you say that a man’s natural instinct is to polygamous marriage and marriages are supposed to protect the wife. For one thing, most women would rather share George Clooney or Rob Pattinson with 50 other women than marry a perfectly eligible homeless guy or bald dude. Ask them. My understanding is that marriage originated as a way for a man to protect his property rights and to transfer them to his sons.
Women are the ones for whom polygamy is preferable to marrying a single loser. No guy wants to share a woman with other men. Hence,it’s a pretty sure cinch polygamy isn’t a male idea or we couldn’t rationally object to such an arrangement.
What I meant is that the male animal is metabolically driven to polygamous (as opposed to monogamous) procreation. Sex with multiple partners in the natural world. Monogamous marriage is a social construct enforced by social mores or legal consequences to keep the male committed to providing for the brood he sires. Marriage defined as between one man and one woman is a limitation forbidding polygamy. Polgamy is not an american value. It’s not a value anywhere else except islum or animist cultures. To . To redefine marriage as a right purs on a collision course with polygamy. Keep this out of the courts where “rights” are thrown about like free candy to children. Remove any remaining legal impediments to same sex partnerships in the state legislatures. And let’s get ourselves out of this boilerplate hysteria, whipped up by two mayors chicago and Boston.
The problem with your thesis is we are not at liberty to do as we please at any time. We never have been. If that were the case we would have no government, no civilization, no laws, and no peace keepers. Let’s not abuse the concept of liberty because you do not understand or have a broader concept of what civilization is comprised of and exactly what built it.
If my natural status was that of a serial killer I could also use the liberty argument much to my advantage.
“If I wanted America to fail”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ-4gnNz0vc
According to a report in the Daily Rash, the mayor of Boston says his heroic fight against Chick-fil-A prevented a homosexual holocaust. http://www.thedailyrash.com/boston-mayor-fights-chicken
according to this report menino has since backed off the idea since the aclu warned government leaders not to join in the type of threats the mayors made
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2012/July/Pro-Gay-Marriage-ACLU-Defends-Chick-fil-A/
“The government can regulate discrimination in employment or against customers, but what the government cannot do is to punish someone for their words,” said Adam Schwartz, senior attorney for the ACLU of Illinois.
He added that the ACLU “strongly supports” same-sex marriage, but explained that “if a government can exclude a business for being against same-sex marriage, it can also exclude a business for being in support of same-sex marriage.”
1. You will notice that conservative governments (there are a few left, here and there) don’t do that sort of thing.
2. If anyone was stupid enough to do that, the courts would decide that this violates equal protection and strike it down…but probably uphold Chicago doing it because it encourages equality.
what is the point of “gay issues” other than forcing “tolerance”
are there “straight” issues?
is being homosexual the one and only defining trait of these individuals? – how sad
in this sense, i have a big problem with “‘da gays” or any other balkanized victim group feigning grievances and foisting tyranny
like the author and a few other posters i firmly dig in my heels when the left gets “all in the face”
I have asked the same question. I have a teenaged family friend who is on my facebook. She decided recently that she was gay and out (at 15). Ever since EVERYTHING she posts is lgbt related, from the San Diego gay pride parade to her glsen summer camp photos to even her music selections. Not like she doesn’t have other things going on as a biracial military child with two autistic siblings and a mom battling cancer with a dad in special opps. Nope, nothing matters anymore. It is all about this part of who she is and the other parts of her life are irrelevant. I miss the other half of her too
i don’t watch the gay pride parade or kissing all over the place in public or anderson cooper saying he’s Proud to come out as homosexual.
mainly, like the eastern philosophy of saving someone else’s face by not acknowledging what would be an embarrassment, i don’t look.
friends of mine who are homosexual don’t use it as a source of pride. or, shame. those who do, are merely political animals with an agenda to develop a following so that they can shake a tin cup.
To Mr Klavan, the point of “do not judge”:
People should gently tell others when they commit sin that they are engaging in a destructive act, because they LOVE the sinner. They don’t want other men to end in spiritual separation from God, so they point out what is the wrong way and tell them “please don’t go there, and here are my reasons”. With regard to Christian ethics on homosexual relations, read Romans 1. This would hold with other sexual relations outside of marriage (fornication and adultery): I’m not going to accept them, and I won’t encourage other people to engage in them.
Because of the original sin, there’s no moral “high ground” from which Christians preach ethics. Tell others to the best of your knowledge what is right and what is wrong, and then leave the distribution of justice and grace to God. Don’t lie about homosexuality or any other sin, because then you’re an accomplice to sin.
I married my wife when we both decided to spend our lives together. It had nothing to do with a bureaucrat subsequently issuing us a piece of paper. Why would I want the government to certify or define my private relationship? I wish gays would fight to get government out of the marriage certifying business. If the government doesn’t define or approve our relationships then we can all just live and let live.
I married my wife when we both decided to spend our lives together. It had nothing to do with a bureaucrat subsequently issuing us a piece of paper. Why would I want the government to certify or define my private relationship?
Because it is not your “private relationship”. If you wanted a “private relationship” you’d shack up with your woman. You sought marriage because you wanted public recognition of your relationship. You wanted to be able to say “This is my wife”, she wanted to be able to say “This is my husband”, and most importantly of all, you both wanted everyone else to agree with you.
“I am reminded of the deep, vicious and steadfast intolerance of those who claim the mantle of tolerance. I begin to suspect — I do suspect — that the movement for gay marriage is nothing more than an assault on freedom of religion and freedom of expression by other means — yet another ploy of those who believe in an all-powerful state shepherding powerless individuals into leftist nirvana. ”
I think much of this stuff (e.g. forcing contraception onto Catholic institutions) essentially amounts to an attack on the status quo.
You can’t build a New World Order if the old world order still has legs.
Homosexual marriage is an oxymoron, an internal contradiction, because marriage is simply the union of one man and one woman. Homosexuals already have a right to associate with each other as an expression of their God-given human right to liberty, and the same goes for their right to enter contractual agreements regarding property, inheritance, power of attorney, etc. Homosexual radicals desire to re-define the word “marriage” and its social meaning; that they do not have a right to do, unless they can, by non-coercive rational argument, convince the heterosexual majority to do so.
“Every man, and every body of men on earth, possesses the right of self-government. They receive it with their being from the hand of nature. Individuals exercise it by their single will; collections of men by that of their majority; for the law of the majority is the natural law of every society of men.” Thomas Jefferson
“And where else will this degenerate son of science [Hume], this traitor to his fellow men, find the origin of just powers, if not in the majority of the society? Will it be in the minority? Or in an individual of that minority?” Thomas Jefferson
“Where the law of the majority ceases to be acknowledged, there government ends; the law of the strongest takes its place, and life and property are his who can take them.” Thomas Jefferson
Also, children possess a natural right to be raised, whenever possible, by a mother and a father; this natural right of the child trumps the unnatural desire of homosexual couples to adopt children.
So I suppose you want to outlaw single people adopting children?
No, but single people, as is the case with homosexual couples, naturally possess an inferior right to adopt children compared to a married man/woman couple. The rationale is simple, as I stated above; all children possess a natural right to be raised, whenever possible, by a mother and father.
all children possess a natural right to be raised, whenever possible, by a mother and father.
While it is certainly preferable for children to be raised by a mother and father, can we please dispense with the bogus manufacturing of “rights?” This sort of made-up “human right” is precisely what has given phony credence to the ever-more-outrageous demands of the gay-rights lobby.
We don’t do “human rights”—that is, special privileges from the government—here; at least, we’re not supposed to. We’re supposed to have liberty, which is to say, freedom, which involves dealing with whatever life throws at us and making the best of it, except for the bare minimum that is necessary for the government to keep public order. We have civil rights against the government, to slap it down if/when it gets out of line.
But a “natural right to be raised by a mother and father?” Where and from what did you make this up?
Buzz, the right comes from God.
I totally agree, Stonewall. (See my comment at #10.)
“But a “natural right to be raised by a mother and father?” Where and from what did you make this up?”
All people possess a natural unalienable right to life because God gave life to man, and it follows that no man has a right to take away from another man the life gift of God. Similarly all people possess a natural unalienable right to liberty and the fruit of labor in their creative pursuit of happiness, because God gave liberty and creativity to man.
“The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another’s pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another’s uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for our’s.” John Locke
All children possess a natural right to be raised by a mother and father because God, through the laws of nature and human nature, gave each child a mother and father. I didn’t make this up, it is just that you do not understand, or you reject, the self-evident truth that natural rights are endowed to us by our Creator.
The late Milton Friedman, who knew as much about “natural rights” as anyone—and more than most—was also adept at pointing out the distinction between something desirable and something you have a “right” to. Most people—you among them—get confused by the two, and think that because they really, really want something they have a “right” to it.
Does the child whose mother dies in childbirth get to sue God for depriving him of his “rights?” How about the child who survives the car wreck that killed his parents, or the massacre which wiped out his village?
Nobody has a “right to be raised by a mother and father.” It is desirable, but there is no “right” to it. The person once born may have a “right” to life, but even that may be abrogated by starvation, disease, or any number of other catastrophes.
All that anyone has a “right” to is to not be wantonly deprived of life by another, if that person is lucky enough to live in an ordered society that values human life. But a “right to be raised by a mother and father?” What nonsense.
People do possess a natural unalienable right to life because they really, really want life; God gave life to man with a corresponding natural urge and instinct for life. The same applies to man’s unalienable rights to liberty and the fruit of his/her labor in pursuit of happiness.
Children who end up with one parent are at a disadvantage, but no one can “sue God” because He is not the one responsible for maternal death in childbirth, car wrecks or massacres. Biological nature is usually responsible for maternal death in childbirth, so no person is liable. People are responsible for car wrecks and massacres, so they can be sued for depriving the child of his/her natural right to a mother and father.
Calling good sense nonsense is nonsense.
He is not the one responsible for maternal death in childbirth, car wrecks or massacres. Biological nature is usually responsible for maternal death in childbirth, so no person is liable. People are responsible for car wrecks and massacres, so they can be sued for depriving the child of his/her natural right to a mother and father.
You believe the Creator and Master of the Universe is not responsible for all those things? What a paltry and puny “god” you seem to believe in.
Children possess a natural unalienable right be raised by a mother and father because they really, really want a mother and father. God gave a mother and father to each child with a corresponding natural urge and instinct to have a mother and father.
By creating man with a free mind, by creating man in His own image, The King of our Universe temporarily limits His own omnipotence. God is not in charge of your free will, you are in charge of it. This is the explanation for evil in the world – evil derives from man’s freedom to choose evil over good. God’s self-limited omnipotence will be restored when the last man or woman dies. The Creator and Master of the Universe would be a puny god if His omnipotence were imposed by another being greater than Himself, but that is not the case; God chose to limit His own omnipotence for the sake of man’s freedom.
“Almighty God hath created the mind free. All attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens . . . are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion.” Thomas Jefferson
Political correctness is the opposite of Mother Nature and what your eyes see. There is nothing to “judge.” Water is wet, Mumbai a sh-thole, etc. Water is still wet in a gay household and a long plane ride is not the Enlightenment.
It tends to be straight leftists who push for this harder than anyone else, because they know that if the right uses the “religious freedom” defense, that they (the left) can turn right around and use that as a bludgeon to club the right with over Islam.
When the cultural attitude about marriage includes a significant element of social responsibility — in particular, to make the 2.5 kids, STAY married and conscientiously raise those kids for the benefit of the kids AND society — then the society benefits greatly: lower poverty rates, lower crime, better public education, and well developed immediate and extended families which assist in the care of members. I would even say that the continued existence of the society depends on it. Without it, the society dies out for lack of new members; or it becomes highly dysfunctional and self-destructs.
When marriage becomes just a living arrangement which rarely benefits society while receiving benefits and special consideration from society, then it becomes another case of getting something for nothing while removing any sense of social obligation. One does not need to drag religion into the picture to oppose officially defining marriage as state endorsement and reward of a “relationship”. For some it’s a religious thing; but for others, it is pragmatic. I suspect for Mr. Chick-fil-a it is little of both.
“I like gay people”, Klavan says. I don’t really get this comment. Do you mean you know some gay people and you generally like them? Or do you just like gay people in general for no other reason than that they are gay? Do you personally know every gay person out there? If not, how can you say you like them if you don’t even know them? I hope you meant that you like the gay people you know, because anyone who declares that they like gay people in general, and not on an individual basis, can only like them because of their sexual preference, since that is the only common denominator, and that is really, really weird.
Cousin marriage — very common in the Islamic world, especially the Arab part of it — and multiple marriage are outlawed now, but for how long if gay marriage is legal? I think the main societal question is: What happens after it becomes clear that anything goes? If the millennia-old definition of “marriage” (a sacred/state-sanctioned union between a man and a woman for the purpose of begetting children) no longer applies, then what, if anything, is out of bounds? The Obama campaign looked like it was going to start harping on former Mormon polygamism, but since O has “evolved” on gay marriage we hear no more of that. Coincidence?
I certainly sympathize with Mr. Klavan’s libertarian ideas here, but I’m concerned that the idea of marriage, once untethered from man-woman, will become increasingly devalued and meaningless. And if society legally sanctions alternative arrangements, how can it keep gays, for instance, from adopting? We all know what happened in the wake of the Catholic Church’s unfortunate “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. As a boy I was abused by a man who was involved with the Boy Scouts. How libertarian are we prepared to get?
Glad to see someone else’s eyes are open enough to see the Arab/Islam connection underneath it all.
Yes. Look at Europe. They’ve let in all of those immigrant muslims, many of whom are polygamous; and guess who ends up supporting many of them (the multiple wives, the multiple children)? The taxpayer!
Well said!
Hell, gay people should be FORCED to marry within a year of coming out or turning 18. They’ve had it too easy for too long! Like the man said, in a democracy the people get what they want, and they get it good and hard. They too should know the joys of child support, alimony, endless days and countless dollars wasted on lawyers and in court, arguing over who gets the car, the dog, the house.
Yea, make’em get married! Hope ya choke, as my red neck grandfather used to say.
I can’t believe you just compared putting things up your anus with being left handed. Are you serious? Perhaps there is an argument that there may be some propensity reinforced by social anomalies. But natural? That is obviously madness.
Ok, you may make the argument that people should be allowed to do unnatural things. But then, dictate the terms of greater society and the social fabric of our society, freedom of conscious, based on these obviously unnatural acts? That is lunacy.
“Homosexuality seems as much a part of nature as left-handedness…”
Left or right-handedness is self-evidently a part of human nature, whereas homosexuality is self-evidently unnatural. To equate that which is natural with that which is unnatural is self-evidently irrational.
Left-handedness is not of greater value than right-handedness, nor the other way around; but it is self-evident that the value of heterosexual marriage, and the families which follow, is superior to that of homosexuality, the family composing the foundational institution of Judeo-Christian Western Civilization, which Marxists and radical homosexuals wish to dismantle. Homosexuals as individuals are of equal value to heterosexuals as individuals, and should enjoy equal rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no equivalence in regards to homosexual vs. heterosexual relationships.
Even if a homosexual gene is someday found, that would not make homosexuality equal in value to heterosexual marriage; there is, after all, a genetic basis for some forms of schizophrenia and cancer, conditions which are a part of nature yet inferior to the condition of natural health.
Another point: The whole “gay marriage” battle is really about homosexuals trying to force heterosexuals to acknowledge that their relationships have just as much value as “marriage.” But do they really? Marriage is a socio-religious construct geared specifically toward propagation of the species (and inculcation of positive values for the young) under controlled (and hopefully generally positive) conditions of commitment, positive role models for offspring, etc. Is “gay marriage” really the equal of that except in postmodern theory?
So you would be against a hetero couple in their 70′s getting “married” then right? Not going to propogate much at that age.
They are free riders on an institution that primarily exists to define questions about child support. Short of very invasive testing and questioning, I am hard pressed to see a way to exclude such free riders.
It seems to me that couples who can’t have children reinforce the value of the institution when they marry. On the whole, they accept the ideas of fidelity and commitment to extended family. You don’t see older couples arguing that free love should replace fidelity as the standard for marriage. Most heterosexual older couples have a sensitivity to the connection between sex and reproduction that seems to be lacking among the gay activists. With the latter, it seems to be a me, me, me thing
So the septunigarians are Free Riders which somehow makes them less married then the young hetero couple starting out. I agree that there are significant differences but in the eyes of G-d and the law they are just as much married.
I know what marriage is and mine is very traditional, hetero, kids, sanctioned and performed by an orthodox rabbi in keeping with our religion. My issue is that the procreation argument breaks down very quickly when you look at what is actually happening. We have two things going on. One is civil and relates to certain property and other rights granted to all citizens including gay Muslim whatever. The other is cultural which government should have limited involvement in.
It breaks down to the question of how much government needs to be involved in individual rights and involvement in matters relating to religious belief and practice. For me I am concerned when church (of any religion) and state mix. We see what happens in totalitarian Islamist states for example. Our constitution protects against that.
The procreation argument breaks down for the reasons you mention. Too many “free riders” out there to make a coherent case.
I wouldn’t be against it, just as I am not against “gay marriage”, however you are correct, it is not the same thing as traditional marriage. I was once engaged to a man that did not want children, if we had married our marriage too would have been like a gay marriage. It is not that people should not be alliwed to marry the person of their choice, it is that there needs to be an institution that protects the children born of a procreative union. The thing is the whole world does not revolve around gays. A majority of people are heterosexual and heterosexual unions require a higher level of responsibility because of the possibility of creating new life. The Eskimos have many different words for what we call snow, perhaps what we need is to allow marriage for gays, but then we need new words that define the natural and institutional differences between “gay marriage” and “procreative marriage”.
“…perhaps what we need is to allow marriage for gays, but then we need new words that define the natural and institutional differences between “gay marriage” and “procreative marriage”.
it would not work, because we would still be deferent then they are and they can’t have that.
Yep, especially in light of the percentage of homosexuals actually get married when Gay Marriage is implemented.
====
The highest estimate to date of the proportion of gays and lesbians who have married in any jurisdiction where it is available is 16.7% (Massachusetts).
The survey of marriage statistics from various countries that legally recognize same-sex unions suggests that today between 1% and 5% of gays and lesbians have entered into a same-sex marriage.
In the Netherlands, which has had same-sex marriage as a legal option for the longest period (over four years), between 2% and 6% of gays and lesbians have entered marriages.
Source The Washington Blade
====
1%-5%
They arent really interested in getting married. What they are interested in is society offically approving of their sexual activity.
Buddy told me traffic was an absolute mess around one of the Local Chick-fil-A’s today.
This quote is one of the BEST arguments I have seen. Thank you!!!!
“But the right to express, exercise and live by your faith and conscience is far more essential to human liberty and dignity than the government’s official approval of your relationships. If what gay activists really want is the power to silence those who disapprove of them, then to hell with them.”
Best line in the article.
You like gay people! Do you like Italian people? Jewish people? Skinny people?
I’m not a big fan of chicken, but I’ll defend to the death your right to buy (or sell) it. This is just another attempt at collective thought control. It goes beyond socialism, because this is simply a totalitarian idea that you MUST do as the government says. It will tell you what you can and cannot do, what to believe in, and the amount of “freedom” that you can have. Some people call it “political correctness.” I call it thought control and you had better get with the program or the government and maybe even large corporations will crush you if you don’t. Think as they do and do as they say or there is no room for you in this country.
Bunk. Time for a change and it starts in November. All we need is a leader with the backbone to stand up to these creatures and say “No more, this is where it ends.” Do we have that in a leader like Romney? Maybe not totally, but he is a heck of a lot better than Obama ever was, especially when it comes to free enterprise. I have a lot of hope for the newcomers from the Tea Parties in Congress. If we can get more of them elected, just wait and see how things will change in Congress. And then it won’t be long before you could see a Marco Rubio or a Rand Paul or, dare I even dream it, Allen West in the White House. But none of this can happen unless we win in November. And we must. Our nation depends on it.
I reject that having a decision made either legislatively or judicially is libertarian. True libertarianism would be to leave it up to the states – which is what has been going on – but on the ballot so the people of those states have a say in the matter. Every state that has had a say in what they want their society to be has rejected gay marriage. These same states also have voted FOR civil unions.
People are fair – but they are also traditional God fearing folk. Making fun of them or disenfranchizing them doesn’t negate what they (we) believe. It only annoys them (us).
Prior to the introduction of the federal income tax the government was not in the marriage business. Sure a JP could perform a marriage but there was no requirement that one purchase a “marriage license” until the governments started to realize that there was an untapped revenue there and marriage became government sanctioned to facilitate the taxing of the people. Marriage was historically between a couple and god (church). In this day and age I see no reason why the government can’t get out of the marriage business and recognize legally binding domestic partnerships for tax and inheritance (which requirement would be for all citizens, not just gay). That would put “marriage” back where it belongs, out of government control and between a couple and a church for all people.
This is incorrect. Licensing of marriages and official approval goes back a lot before the IRS. Virginia and Maryland both had official recognition of marriages in the 17th century, at least in part because of the effort to stop blacks and whites marrying. Interestingly enough, Maryland did not refuse to recognize such marriages; they just punished ministers who performed them.
With all the female hormones washing into the water supply, the feminization (& subsequent chickification) of the American male should continue apace.
More Tom Cruises, fewer John Waynes.
More hormones now that your prezzydent and Kathleen at HHS insist they be “free”.
Contraception works in favor of another leftist agenda item, eugenics. Also, your own health is compromised with long term use of “the pill”, a big lift to Obamacare rationing.
Human biology doesn’t exactly support postmodernist, free for all ideas on homosexuality …5 billion years of human evolution have never conditioned the thin tissues of the human rectum for intercourse.
Said thinness also contributes to the ability of a certain virus to successfully take up residence.
I find, “I wanna,” to be a weak argument in this area because there isn’t even a thought about a firewall and “I wanna” today will be polygamy and polyandry tomorrow and why in fact couldn’t a woman marry her dog or a man his horse?
For the zillionth time: homosexuals have a right to TOLERATION (not to be arrested or fired for being homosexuals, for example). They do not have a right to ACCEPTANCE (to be free from criticism, to have society recognize their preference as equivalent to heterosexuality). They do, however, have a right to free speech and to try and convince people to accept them.
This isn’t some special right. Everybody has it. Polygamists, for example: it is legal to have four girlfriends and, I think, illegal to fire someone just because of that. They deserve toleration. They have the right to convince people to accept them and legally recognize polygamy. But they don’t have the right to acceptance.
The problem is that when homosexuals claim they have a legal right to acceptance, and that all non-acceptance is ipso facto intolerant, then every other group can do the same. There is no way a court can decide there is a “human right” to homosexual marriage and NOT one to polygamy. If a man can marry a man, he can marry two women, as well.
Worse, it is the essence of fascism. Because if toleration implies acceptance then non-acceptance implies intoleration. There were antisemites in the 1930s in the USA too — but they knew that not accepting Jews, thinking they are inferior or foreign, is no reason to deny Jews the right to be tolerated. Not so in Nazi Germany.
The whole point of a liberal society is that those who one despises must nevertheless be tolerated. If the so-called “progressives” get their way, then it will not only be that gay marriage will be forced to be accepted and not just tolerated. It will work the other way too: whatever opinion or lifestyle is considered unacceptable, will be made illegal by “hate speech” laws, and the like, or by the social services coming to take you away for “treatment” if you don’t live the way the progressives think is the only true way.
It’s already happening, by the way.
If it really came down to that and our laws functioned anything like the gays think they should what would happen is that the majority would rule without regard to minority rights. This is the slippery slope the gays are treading upon. They could wind up not back in the closet but in the cellar. And that would be just the beginning of which the gays would only be the start.
We must not go there and must not let the gays pursue their irrational and illegal pursuit of licensing association as these nut job mayors are trying to do.
If corporations are persons for the purpose of protecting speech, a first amendment right, then how in the world is it that corporations can suffer legal sanction for exercising freedom of association or more exactly disassociation? It is another first amendment right. Do persons have some but not others?
These gays are crazy for looking down their narrow straw-like view for their interest and exercising un-American ways to get their way.
In Europe and in Canada preachers have been jailed under hate crime violations simply for reading the Bible from the pulpit.
I submitted a longish comment earlier but it did not post, so I’ll just try a short one this time to see if it was the HTML hyperlink that caused the problem.
The government simply should not be in the business of sanctioning marriage. Any marriage.
There. Problem solved.
If two, three or ten people decide that they want to live together and give each other certain rights, they can sign a contract. If they want to be called “married”, they are free to find a house of worship that accepts that particular definition. Or, failing that, start their own religion that does.
If you are going to start flinging God’s rules at least know the rules. Start by learning the definition and difference between judgment and discernment. We are not to judge but we are to discern. Then you might read more than the oft bandied one liner about judgement and find out about reproof and admonishment.
All this goes in the mixing bowl and comes out looking like hate the sin, love the sinner. But hate is an action verb not a condition of conscience. This is not the hate the left exhibits. So don’t go there. So is love an action verb but its modern rendition is tough love. This time we’re invoking action adjectives.
Until you do your homework, leave God out of your writings because you’re not up to the level you ought to be to spout his wisdom. You mangled it this time.
Marriage is the term we use to describe the basic breeding unit of the human race. Marriage has been around far longer than any of the modern religions. And in all of recorded human history there has never been a society that has redefined marriage to include homosexual unions, not even in societies where there was no real stigma against homosexuality. Maybe you ought to ask yourself why, Mr. Klavan.
For myself, I think it is because marriage is more than just a relationship between two individuals who love each other passionately as our modern society seems hell bent on brainwashing us to believe. People who are passionately in love don’t really need to make vows in order to stay together. What marriage is is a set of vows designed to keep people together after the thrill is gone. It’s designed for stability and permanence and also for continuity. This makes marriage very important for every society out there that’s serious about surviving. Homosexual unions do not have the all-important element of continuity that marriages provide, not without third party interference that is. A marriage only takes two, a man and a woman to have that, and that’s why marriage is and always has been defined as some combination of those two elements – man/woman.
Now, I’m not saying that it is impossible for a gay relationship to provide most of the same functions to the individuals involved as a marriage. And I am not saying that we should bar gay couples from being able to have legal benefits that encourage constancy and stability. But, I am saying that in some very important and critical ways, homosexual unions are not and really cannot be exactly the same as marriages, and that needs to be understood and recognized by assigning such unions their own term. They are unique.
So then, Mr. Klavan’s arguments on all social issues are invalidated by his acceptance of homosexuality as a part of the natural world?
This is identical to the types of unfair judgments rendered upon Mr. Cathy for his beliefs about marriage. Cathy’s rejection of homosexuality as immoral has no bearing on his ability to shill chicken, just as Mr. Klavan’s views about gays should not color his opinions on unrelated issues.
Your comment might make sense if this blog were “Klavan on Blintzes” or “Klavan on Football”. But it’s “Klavan on Culture,” and so his take on a major cultural issue IS the point. He has imbibed of the same spirit that is causing the inner rot of the culture he pretends to decry. He’s so immersed in it that he cannot see it, and that makes his credibility on other cultural issues nil.
Well Andrew you get your wish, Chick-fil-a isnt “fast food” today! That’s because customers are waiting in line for 30 minutes to get to it.
Andrew is right. This is not about gay marriage, or discrimination but punishing people who disagree with their view. im not a big fastfood person either. but CFA does have good food and their service is better than most sit down resturaunts not jus fast food chains. As far as im aware (and the lefty facists) are aware there has not now nor ever been any discriminatory hiring practices, nor serving practices. Again they know this, which is why they are having such a hard time getting this thing onff the ground except among hard core lefties. I ate there just the other day just to have food. I dont need my chicken sandwitch politisized just supersized. perhaps if the looney lefties were truly interested in dicrimination and opression they would fight opec or if anything look inward at the lefts own actions. but its much safer to pretend to be noble than to actually be noble
ENOUGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 I don’t give a rat’s shit what gays do in the privacy of yout bedrooms. I have some advice gay activists; stop shoving it in my face. Marriage is a bit different from civil union. I resent your attempt to redefine an institution founded upon the bedrock of Judeo-Christian religion. You are making a BIG mistake.
Awww, is it in your face? Can you not walk out of the house without getting a big face-full of gay agenda? Honestly, the noise of socons screaming “It’s in my face! It’s in my face!” is louder than that of gays screaming “Let me marry!”
AK: “But when activists and government officials feel justified in attempting obnoxious boycotts and illegal vendettas against a business like Chick-Fil-A merely because it puts forward traditional beliefs, I am reminded of the deep, vicious and steadfast intolerance of those who claim the mantle of tolerance… If what gay activists really want is the power to silence those who disapprove of them, then to hell with them… What I do find repellent are the hateful and intolerant radicals who wage war on people for their opinions.”
Andrew Klavan made the case for radical homosexual “in your face” intolerance more than carla. The irrational intolerance by radical homosexuals (and their Marxist masters) is the very definition of bigotry, which is “in your face” if you are the target. All Americans who voice support for traditional Judeo-Christian marriage are now targets of “in your face” radical homosexual intolerance and bigotry.
Just to set the record straight (so to speak), Dan Cathy never said that he was opposed to gay marriage. He said in a interview in the Baptist Press that he supported, “We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that…We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that.”
Where exactly is the anti-gay hate speech in that statement? You can read the entire interview here: http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=38271
You will see that homosexuality never even came up in the conversation. However, I guess if you are not for them, you are against them. But I thought we were told that only the Sith deal in absolutes?
Mr. Klavan: I will leave aside the religious arguments against recognizing same-sex marriage, since everyone’s religion is their own business.
Instead, I will point out to you that the political identity of people as “homosexual” springs from the 19th-century pseudoscientific notion that “homosexual” was an identity separate and distinct from “heterosexual,” a notion for which there is not a shred of scientific evidence.
Furthermore, from this pseudoscientific basis there grew a movement—I will call it “gay rights” for convenience, though when this movement began “gay” was a catchall term for all sorts of demimondaines—which has been for over 100 years a pet project of socialists and communists. The gay-rights movement in Weimar Germany was part of the communist movement. In the United States, following WWII, the gay-rights movement was founded by Stalinist members of the Communist Party, including Harry Hay, later a founding member of NAMBLA, who was a hero to Obama’s former “safe schools czar” Kevin Jennings.
Following the Stonewall riot in 1969, the gay-liberation movement was founded to supplant the more staid existing gay-rights movement. The persons who founded this movement were SDSers and Maoists—and one of their oft-repeated objectives was the destruction of marriage, the traditional family, and religion.
At some point in the last 40 years, this movement—which has been at the forefront of destroying and undermining First Amendment protections for the last four decades—decided that “marriage” was no longer its “must-destroy,” but rather a “must-have.”
Why? When? How? and by whose fiat? Before re-inventing the definition of something that’s been around in its current form for some two millennia plus, shouldn’t people maybe think about asking these questions? Given the durability and resilience of Communist objectives over the last century, why would anyone not believe that the current insistence on “marriage” is merely the latest Cloward-Piven tactic by which the movement hopes to attain its previously-openly-stated goals?
Most of us know homosexually-inclined people who are perfectly nice, and whose relationships, if they are in one, may well be deserving of some legal protection. Fine: that is what domestic-partnership laws are for. The gay-rights movement has spent more than 40 years proclaiming and insisting upon its difference; on that basis alone, legal recognition should take a different form than “marriage.”
The issue is not that lovely couple down the street—it is the Left that always insists on making determinations based upon a particular case, and that road always leads to bad policiy. The issue is the gay-rights movement itself, and its insistence on a “human rights”—i.e., special privileges—series of concessions. California has had a strong domestic partnership law for some time, but that recognition and protection was not sufficient for the gay-rights movement; it had to have “marriage,” and the movement viciously targeted those who were perfectly happy to live with the domestic-partnership law, but who drew the line at “marriage.” The movement falsely vilified these people as “anti-gay,” just as it is now doing to the owners of the Chick-Fil-A chain.
The gay-rights movement has been at the forefront of pushing “hate crime” laws, campus “speech codes,” falsely equating political disagreement with “hate,” twisting the language so that verbal disagreeement (“-baiting”) is now equated with physical violence (“-bashing”). All of these things savage First Amendment political discourse. Gay-rights activists have sued florists and bed-and-breakfast proprietors who have declined same-sex marriage business under the Equal Protection Clause; if same-sex marriage becomes more widespread, you will see the same tactics used against traditional religious denominations—which will take us right back to the original Communist objectives of the gay-liberation movement.
I agree, and would like to be specific.
This “scandal” over Mr. Cathy’s remarks is utterly concocted and utterly political.
It is all about the gay-rights activists flexing their power.
The gay-rights movement’s fraudulent claim to “marriage equality” is grounded in falsely equating its desire to stretch the law to cover same-sex unions with the Supreme Court’s voiding of anti-miscegenation laws back in the ’60s, during the Civil Rights Movement. This equation fails on two counts.
First, the anti-miscegenation laws operated to void otherwise-valid marriages on the basis of the extraneous element of race. Nobody suggested that a man and a woman could not get married; the laws against marriages across racial lines sought to impose a racial barrier where no actual barrier existed. It was the imposition of this extraneous barrier that the Supreme Court struck down.
Same-sex marriage cannot fit within this template; absent the political pressure and fabrications of the gay-rights lobby, same-sex marriage has never existed and has no history or tradition behind it. The creation of a new form of marriage, which is what the same-sex marriage advocates desire, is not the same thing as voiding an extraneous barrier to an otherwise-valid marriage.
Second, racial barriers and discrimination have a history of strict scrutiny in American jurisprudence. The history of race in America is such that laws based on racial distinctions must serve a compelling state interest in order to be found valid—otherwise, they are deemed “invidious discrimination,” and voided.
No such history exists where homosexual behavior is concerned. The gay-rights lobby has striven to wrap itself in the tattered vestiges of the Civil Rights Movement, but the same-sex inclined are not denied civil rights such as the right to vote, and the gay-rights movement has always been a “human rights” movement which is antithetical to the concept of civil rights as it exists in the Constitution. While political pressure and soft-headed judges have moved gay-rights jurisprudence far closer to the “compelling state interest” standard which the activists have long sought, it is by no means there yet.
Accordingly, while the gay-rights movement actively analogizes its cause with an element of the Civil Rights Movement, this analogy is completely invalid.
Virginia’s law struck down in Loving v. Virginia (1967) did not simply refuse to recognize interracial marriage. It threatened the Lovings with 25 years in prison if they both returned to Virginia at the same time. If gay people want to get “married” they can move to Idaho and the response will be…crickets chirping.
I’d forgotten the criminal penalties involved in Loving, but they are not really relevant to the issue here, which is the false analogy between creating an extraneous barrier to an otherwise-valid marriage (with, as you point out, the possibility of a draconian penalty), and the pressure-group insistence that a new and unprecedented form of marriage be created to temporarily assuage its demands.
I say “temporarily” because, of course, the demands will not end—they have not ended with this creation where it has been tried. The same pressure group is currently demanding that businesses knuckle under to its demands on “equal protection” grounds, and will, when it is stronger, demand that traditional religions also be forced to do so. That is the objective; to narrow the acceptable bounds of political discourse and damage traditional religious observance.
The only relevance the criminal penalties in Loving have is that they are reminiscent of the often-harsh penalties which formerly used to attend conviction for having violated state sodomy laws; some of the prison sentences could run to twenty years. But this injustice was remedied by the Supreme Court striking down those laws.
If Klavan does indeed write for Thomas Nelson Publishing, I hope they fire him. Not because I have anything against Andrew; he can certainly choose to believe what he wants. No, I just want to know TNP has principles it will stick to.
This flap over some statements made by the CEO of a fast-food chain is a harbinger of things to come should Obama be re-elected and one or more of the two houses of Congress remain in Democratic hands.
Understand that mayors of two of the nation’s largest, most influential cities declared their intention to use the power of government to punish a corporation for the statements made by that corporation’s leader.
This is exactly what the First Amendment was written to prevent. Without a second thought, these two “Progressives” wiped their feet on the Constitution of the United States and proclaimed that the Freedom of Expression is null and void in their jurisdictions if that expression is counter to their own beliefs.
Add this to Obama’s trampling of Religious Freedom under his horrendous “affordable” public healthcare debacle, his redistribution of wealth, the ever-growing welfare state, the purposeful destruction of the economy and the dismantlement of the rule of law; and you start to see the outlines of a police state emerging in the not-too-distant future.
If he and his party can accomplish this much destruction of individual liberty in just three years and nine months, think what they can accomplish in the next four years.
The American Experiment is hanging from a thread.
Does Boeing ring a bell?
What I’m intolerant of is the prices at Chik-fil-a. It had been a while since I had eaten their and I upped and decided to go their a while back just for something different. I got a regular Chick-fil-a sandwich combo to go. I got home and I just sat there staring at the little sandwich that was smaller than my fist. I wondered aloud how the hell that tiny sandwich could come out to cost $9. I can see why women and childens love the place so much because Chick-fil-a’s dainty little food fits in their tiny tender paws so well. But if you’re a big HeftyJo like me then you could easily blow $20 in that place trying to get full.
Food prices everywhere are inflating. This is due to a number of factors including rising fuel & fertilizer prices, and the government subsidized ethanol insanity which is driving up the price of corn and therefore everything that requires corn to produce, like soft drinks and chicken. The price of wheat flour is also up.
“food prices everywhere” is right!
Ethanol production is going to create famine in the Third World.
Islamists in Egypt and Libya won’t be able to afford food?
You say this as if it were a bad thing.
That is by no means an uncommon price for any kind of fast food these days. It may still be fast, but it is by no means inexpensive.
“If what gay activists really want is the power to silence those who disapprove of them, then to hell with them.”
Mister Klavan, at some point – sooner rather than later – I am all but certain it will come to that. There are exceptions and degrees, but as far as the Radical Homosexualists (Gay or straight) go, I don’t see how they can ever stop until they get the absolute, unconditional and totalitarian approval they apparently never got from their parents.
There are things that majorities owe minorities. There are also things that minorities owe tolerant majorities and one of them is not demanding that we reorder society and overturn 5000 years of recorded human history (not to mention scripture – for those who believe) to their every whim I know of no civil rights thinker of the first rank who ever thought that “Gay marriage” was part of the program. As far as I can see, this is a Liberal / Libertarian White Guys issue. I don’t see much support for this among Blacks or Latinos. Polls notwithstanding (there are lies, damned lies, statistics and then polls,) I honestly believe that – put to it – this is a 60-40 country on the matter of “Gay Marriage.”
I thought this an interesting defense of marriage (I would point out that Mister Harris is homosexual) …
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/8020
… though as a merely secular one, I don’t think it stands. The Jews knew better:
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0003.html
In dubio, pro tradito.
I’ll tell you why marriage should be defined as between one man and one woman: If it should be legal and sanctioned that men can marry men and women can marry women, then why shouldn’t a man be able to marry his dog? Think about it: There is no argument against inter-species marriage that a gay-marriage proponent can make that is not hypocrritical. It’s just a little farther down the slippery slope.
Klavan
Honest question. You have a 10 year old son who says he like the neighbor kid who is male. Likes as in he is romantically attracted to him. Is that OK with you? What do you say? Anything? Do you try to change it. Anythng short of No blows a hole in your I love gays and its not an issue piece here. Its an honest question. Please answer.
Suggesting that a ten-year-old, no matter what he says, knows anything whatever about “romantic attraction” is absurd.
so he’s 20
stop the bullshit
answer it yourself
you are not stupid enough to not get it
you are trying to discredit, divert etc…
make him any age you like
the question stands
It is you who is creating a diversion by bringing up irrelevancies; you have your panties in a twist about homosexual desire/behavior. The issues here are the politics of the gay-rights movement, particularly as regards same-sex marriage, and various First Amendment freedoms.
Untwist your panties, wash your mouth out with soap, and stay on topic.
Hundreds Turn Out For “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day” Gay rights activists call for restaurant boycott By Keaton Fox | Wednesday, Aug 1, 2012
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Hundreds-Turn-Out-For-Chick-fil-A-Appreciation-Day-164585036.html
Heh. Try “thousands”, at every location in the country. (I’m thinking of the total number of customers for the whole day. At any given moment, there were “hundreds”.)
Rush Limbaugh said that it was as if a nationwide Tea Party rally spontaneously broke out.
I seriously thought about wearing my Gadsden t-shirt but decided not to. I reasoned that it was not a political rally but just a show of support for a private business by ordinary people. My instincts proved correct. I didn’t see any political messages, just an occasional American flag on a t-shirt.
From my vantage point, I could see two women standing on the curb at the entrance from the road, holding a sign. I think they were protesters, but their backs were to me and I couldn’t see what their sign said. There was a TV news van parked directly across from them. I didn’t see the evening news, but I have to wonder about the ratio of attention given to them vs. the hundreds of people in line and in the restaurant.
so he’s 20
stop the bullshit
answer it yourself
you are not stupid enough to not get it
I had a lot of gay friends when I was in my 20s. By the time I was in my 40s it seemed the club, fashion and entertainment scenes that I had outgrown were still the center of their world outside of work. It got to where they simply bored me and we drifted apart. By then I’d also had it with the in your face nature of many of the gays I’d meet in passing in Chicago. Few gay owned businesses can survive on exclusively gay clientele except bars and the occasional boutique catering to those who wear size 13EEE high heels. Yet it seemed if my straight friends and I wanted to go to a hot new restaurant in Boystown we risked being verbally harassed by patrons of the gay bars we’d have to pass to walk there. After one particularly vile insult I stopped patronizing restaurants in Boystown if they were anyplace near a gay bar.
Few gays I knew back then were into marriage. I suspect a lot of the gay marriage activism is driven by anti-religious sentiment than a desire to actually be married. Some of that sentiment may be more personal than is often credited. The Catholic Church made changes in how they screened those seeking to enter the priesthood. When I was younger I suspected a lot of priests I met were gay by inclination, if celibate. When I came back to the Church a dozen years ago after two decade’s absence I found I get that gay vibe a lot less often. Indeed I get very little sexual vibe at all from today’s priests.
I’ve heard the argument multiple times here that “what if you want to marry your dog, pet rock, whatever. My first response to that is: who cares? But more specifically, in this country we can name our children anything we want–including the notorious Ima and Youra (sp?) Pig. And yes, this can go to far, but we accept that enough people won’t want to sabotage their children’s lives, their own reputation, etc. to make these instances–while perhaps regrettable–quit rare in occurrence. This is one small price of freedom, and one I gladly accept.
On a personal note, I was in Spain when my son was born. My Spanish wife and I wanted to name him Jack, but the Spanish Cultural Ministry wouldn’t allow it since it was a nickname for “John” and so should be translated into “Joan” (pronounced Joo-wan, catalan for “John”). Well Joan just happens to be my mother, and I must say I never thought I would be naming my son after my mother. But thank God the Spanish Cultural Ministry was there to save me from naming my son after somebody like, er . . . my father?
I can’t for the life of me understand how gays marrying would destroy western civilization. Gay marriage should be proudly allowed as a statement that the country stands for individual liberty. Something we can all agree on. The left uses these key issues both to attack the right and justify their many, many, many tramplings on our personal freedoms. This makes it so much more difficult to defend our position or tear into theirs when this huge asterisk hangs over the point you’re trying to make that the democrats are the party that is truely made up of control freaks.
By the way, Klavan, excellent article (as well as the one that recently appeared in the Wall Street Journal–been wanting to give you kudos on that one). Glad to see this site continues to host libertarian thought.
I can’t for the life of me understand how gays marrying would destroy western civilization. Gay marriage should be proudly allowed as a statement that the country stands for individual liberty. Something we can all agree on. The left uses these key issues both to attack the right and justify their many, many, many tramplings on our personal freedoms.
If you read my two entries at #51, you will perhaps come to understand that this issue has been entirely concocted by the Left for the purpose of trampling on personal freedom under the guise of “individual liberty.”
Good legalistic argument, Buzzsaw, but it rather deflects from the universal humanistic argument that–as a matter of equity, of what is instinctively fair–two people, in this case regardless of sex, should have the right to be married under civil law, like anyone else. You or I may or may not get the warm and fuzzies from the concept, but our personal sensitivities mean zero when held up to universal truths of equity. And let’s face it, redirection to legal precedent in this case is only serving as a smokescreen to keep you from getting the willies.
Not in the least. We are a nation of laws, not warm fuzzies and not invented equities. You want to invent something brand-new in the law, you have to make a case for why it should be given credence, and present a decent argument for how it isn’t going to shoot the existing structure to hell. Appeals to warm fuzzies and invented equities don’t cut it—the more so when there are damned good historical and political reasons why this brand-new legal proposition should be shot down.
We are not a nation based on ‘fairness’. Never have been.
How could a sexual preference–which from all accounts has been with us from day one and which has also been considered such a taboo for so long as to not even be spoken of–have been even thought to have been mentioned by the founding fathers or anybody else years ago? Let alone be able to have the luxury of precedence and codification into law.
Similar legalistic arguments could have been used as well for justification for limiting universal suffrage in the early 20th century. Prior rights and restrictions imposed by precedence mean little when held up to basic human equity.
First, you fail to understand the distinction between “nature” and “morals.” To quote Oscar Wilde, “nature is what we are put on this earth to rise above”; the fact that a proclivity exists does not mean that it is to be encouraged. We do not, for example, encourage the proclivities towards rape, incest, and child abuse.
But even that is not the point; you are mistaking the existence of a proclivity, and the legality of indulging in it, with the granting of a particular status—a legal status—for which there is no historical precedent. So, again; if you want to change that, it is up to you to make the case—and blather about “equities” does not cut the mustard.
On the contrary, the fact you are suggesting that homosexuality is a “proclivity” is nothing but an assumption on your part–and in my opinion, an ignorant one. I knew my cousin was gay when he was not much more than a toddler. And I, myself, am so heterosexual as to question whether I would prefer to live if somebody put a gun to my head and told me to have sex with another man. I certainly don’t see this “proclivity” as my choice. Its how I was born. Of course bisexuality occurs, which muddles things up and which I’m sure you would use as evidence of proclivities.
I know a lot of gay men (they all have hot friends who also happen to be girls) and yet have no temptation to have sex with them even when the girls flirt all they can and tempt shamelessly. Frankly, if you consider homosexuality to be a choice, I know you have little contact with gays and have to tell you that you are clearly wrong.
And, once again, you’re sticking to “no historical precedent” without answering my point that historical precedence means nothing when it comes to matters of equity. If you want precedence, here’s one for you: all laws today at one time had no precedents. They were added with time by mutual societal agreement–in our lucky case, one based on truths endowed by our creator, not prior human judgements. And these laws were based on all men being equal. Get the equity part?
This in no way should be confused with “judicial activism,” which takes a prior societal compact and turns it on its head for political ends by selecting some for preferential treatment over others.
Frankly, if you consider homosexuality to be a choice, I know you have little contact with gays and have to tell you that you are clearly wrong.
And, once again, you’re sticking to “no historical precedent” without answering my point that historical precedence means nothing when it comes to matters of equity.
For some people—many people—homosexual behavior is a choice. I know someone, now a grandfather, who decided to “come out” after twenty years of marriage. I know someone else who, after 25 years in a same-sex relationship, married and now has a child. I worked years ago for a man who had been some aging queen’s kept boy, but was married and had a family.
The notion that “homosexual” is an all-or-nothing proposition is one of the biggest of the many Big Lies that the gay-rights lobby promulgates. The lobby tries to hide it with their “B” for “bisexual,” but the political gays hate bisexuals as being insufficiently committed. A year or so ago, a “gay softball league” in Seattle refused to let bisexuals participate because they “weren’t gay enough.”
You are mistaking desire and mannerisms for action. You have bought into the pseudoscience that decrees “homosexuality” to be a phenomenon distinct from “heterosexuality”—when exclusivity in either direction is merely a pole on the continuum of human desire, and what if anything one does about it is a matter of opportunity and socialization. That, by the way, is one of the reasons for not granting fancy privileges to homosexual unions; if they are considered undesirable, there is no reason to encourage them, since you get more of what you encourage. Certainly the “gay community” which attempts to recruit and socialize at ever-younger ages is looking to swell its demographic, so that some poor kid who participated in a circle-jerk during a Boy Scout camping weekend is encouraged (as are his fellows) to re-define him as “gay”—with the blessing of people like yourself.
Your constant returning to the word “equity” as if it had some independent meaning without definitions and criteria is tiresome and empty. You have made no case for “equity,” and I do not believe you are capable of doing so, based on your showing thus far.
(I knew you would bring up bisexuals–I called it, didn’t I?) And you use it as evidence of homosexuality as a choice. Then you go on to say that there is no evidence of a difference. Well, I’ll take it for granted what somebody says their sexual bias is. I think it is incumbent on you to provide evidence that what they claim is not true. Instead you rely on your telepathic abilities, like liberals constantly do of conservatives in making claims to their “racism,” “sexism,” or what have you.
I know for a fact that I could never be gay. If you are not so sure about your own sexuality and see that it could go either way, know that some people are not like you and can be fully gay or fully straight. I know that when a person puts out a real effort to follow a certain path that they think, why shouldn’t others be as strong as me? Why are they held to a different standard?
My response to that is that we all make our own choices. And by the way, if a choice can even be made, I don’t necessarily see that one decision–in this case–should be held up any higher than another.
And since you have questions over why equity should take precedence over law, I suggest you consult your spiritual advisor.
Once again, you have not defined “equity”—and a word without definitions and criteria is utterly meaningless.
As to your ad hominem projections, I have merely pointed out that human sexuality is on a continuum, with exclusivity of attraction at each pole of that continuum. Homosexual behavior was rampant among the heterosexual males of ancient Greece, as it is among Muslims. That is a matter of socialization—or are you really so demented as to believe there is a “gay gene” that is more prevalent among Arabs than among non-Arabs? Prisoners often become homosexual, as do hoboes, since both are monosexual societies; given other opportunities, they may change their behavior.
The gay-rights lobby fights to “educate” (i.e., indoctrinate) at ever-younger ages because it wants to increase its demographic through socialization and training. Whether the persons it acquires by such socialization are “truly gay” (whatever that means) or not is of no concern to a lobby which willingly killed thousands of its own members during the worst of the AIDS epidemic; the lobby is about power, not the welfare of those it claims, falsely, to represent.
I agree that your sexuality is probably fixed and that at this stage in your life, it is extemely unlikely you will change. I also believe that some men are gay despite much effort to change them when they are living in a society hostile to homosexuality. It does not matter if the reason is genetic or enviroment for that group of people.
However, the reality is that most people can be influenced to move on a continuum of same and opposite sex attraction by society. Sex among the same and opposite sex was universally practiced in pre-Christian Greece and Rome (as well as other societies.) If children are indoctrinated in this mindset, which will be the law as it is in California already, you will see the society move in the direction of ancient Greece where the term “gay” will become meaningless’
You seem to negate entirely what happened to those societies that made the term meaningless as you put it. Apparently it wasn’t meaningless at all. They didn’t just slide down the slippery slope. They went headlong down it on a toboggan.
Sorry, that last one was @Buzzsawmonkey.
The phrase “gay people” already has a meaning in English which has nothing to do with homosexuals. Gay does not mean homosexual any more than gaiety means homosexuality. Stop collaborating in politically-motivated destruction of our language.
Aug. 1, 2012: The Day AMERICA’S CHICKENS Came HOME to ROOST!
I must have missed that study where they walked around Saudi Arabia asking men if they were gay or not and they all said, “Yes! We are gay!” And as far as homosexuality in the ancient world goes, that might just be a projection by gay historians and gay ancient writers, like Homer (from which the term “homo” is derived, I might add).
Equity:
eq·ui·ty
noun /ˈekwitē/
The quality of being fair and impartial
- equity of treatment
A branch of law that developed alongside common law in order to remedy some of its defects in fairness and justice.
Living in denial of the rampant homosexuality and bestiality in the ME will not negate it’s existence.
Once again, that last one was @ Buzzsawmonkey.
Keith, thank you for your comments. I would like people who think their religious convictions on this matter imparts a moral high ground to go back to square one. Love is the greatest gift of all and two people who love one another are doing so by the glory of god.
Buzzsawmonkey
You believe the Creator and Master of the Universe is not responsible for all those things? What a paltry and puny “god” you seem to believe in.
Apparently you do not understand, so you mock. God gave us free agency, if he is responsible for all the things that happen on earth, he is abrogating our free agency.
how little you know of God.
I am mocking, not God, but people like yourself who want to reduce Him and His Omnipotence to their own level—and people like Stonewall, upthread, who go around inventing nonexistent “rights” because they do not understand that the “right to life” which comes from God merely means that your life, or mine, is something which other people have no right to abrogate.
This is hardly the forum for a theological discussion, but it should be obvious that human free will has no control over the operation of microbes on the human body. Similarly, if one person is driving a car and stupidly exercises his free will by texting while driving, he still does not intend to run over the pedestrian who, likewise exercising his free will by checking his emails instead of the traffic, happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Both people are exercising their free will, but the outcome comes from God.
You strike me as one of those people who, surviving a bridge collapse, will say, “God was with me,” and not realize that God was just as much with those people who perished in the same collapse.
The Lord created both the male and the female. That was His choice and all His decisions are based on His Infinite Wisdom.
He also set before the peoples choices of good and evil, right and wrong, discernment and foolishment etc .. He does not change to suit the popular flavor of the day.
He has told us what we need to know. He has advised us on what will give us the ‘good’ that we all seek. And He has warned us of the pitfalls. It is in our own best interests that we get understanding at all costs.
We will be on this earth for a few measly decades and then we cross over to deal with our own chosen survival. He knows what we will face and have to deal with, so His words reflect that knowledge.
There is no way under the sun that the Lord is going to put His creation of the female on the back burner. Nor will He ever allow His purpose of creation to be undermined by the foolish who choose perversion.
Nor will He ever accept the white washing of evil as ‘just, fair, or tolerable.
All we can ever bring upon ourselves … is destruction. That’s the future for this folly. And it is a future not far away.
Klavan’s comment:
“I’m not convinced — not even convinced that the possibility of such a moral hazard is a compelling reason to keep people from doing whatever they bloody well want with their private lives.”
The reason to oppose government endorsement same sex marriage as being equal to traditional marriage has nothing to do about with keeping what gays do in their private lives. The current law does nothing to control their private lives. The reason to oppose government endorsement of same sex marriage is because human sexuality is not as fixed as what Klavan portrays below:
“As for the ideas that being gay is unnatural or a sin per se — that is, a sin whether it does any earthly harm or not — I reject them outright. Homosexuality seems as much a part of nature as left-handedness and is probably much less annoying when using scissors.”
Clearly some people are gay even when society is hostile to homosexuality and they wish they were not gay. However society has a huge influence on rates of gay sex. In entire societies, including pre-Christian Greece and Rome, men were as likely to have sex with other men as well as women. Did they all have the gay gene?
If same sex marriage advocates win, children will be taught in schools at the youngest age that marrying someone of the same or opposite sex is equally good and that disagreeing with that view is hate. Suggesting to a child that he will marry someone of the opposite sex will be forbidden as heterosexist. Sex education in school will be required to teach gay sex side by side with heterosexual sex so as not to appear to endorse heterosexual sex as preferable. Positive stories regarding gay relationships will be required as part of the curriculum as currently required in k-12 California education. Homoerotic scenes in movies, books, etc. will become much more frequent.
The experience from pre-Judeo Christian societies makes it clear that being “gay” or “straight” may one day become meaningless terms. People will have sex with anyone.
The wisdom of Genesis is that “It is not good for man to be alone.” The cut-flower theory suggests that removing Judeo Christian values from society will not cause immediate destruction, but it will be harmed over time. The saying is “Women: you can’t live with them. You can’t live without them.” We’ll our society will find out that men can live without women for the sexual satisfaction and the results of women not having a major influence upon men as they currently do in intimate relationships, will not be good. Furthermore, women provide some brakes on promiscuity. Can you imagine if society brings out the ability of men to be as attracted to men as equally as they are to women? Every weekend with men away from the wife will be a potential Brokeback Mountain temptation. There will be temptation whether you go out with the same or opposite sex.
Klavan:
“And if it is somehow offensive to God, that’s His business: I am specifically instructed to judge not in such matters and tend to my own manifold offenses.”
Sorry Klavan, but if you are Christian, Jesus are also you called to reprove your neighbor with love, which is differing than judging their intentions. Opposing government endorsement of same sex marriage has nothing to do with judging the intentions of anyone.
Then why not dispense with genders all together? Why describe someone with a penis as “male” and someone with a vagina as “female”? Why not just cal them people? And why not make it a law, out of fairness, that one of every two children in any given household must be raised gay. It’s only fair, right? Oh, wait — that’s exactly what is happening in California. Pubic schools now are required to include curriculum pointing out the achievements of gay people.
“But the right to express, exercise and live by your faith and conscience is far more essential to human liberty and dignity than the government’s official approval of your relationships.
If what gay activists really want is the power to silence those who disapprove of them, then to hell with them.”
I like the way you put that.
I agree.
This has been a double assault — on Free Speech and Freedom of Religion.
I’m not Gay, nor am I particularly religious. (But I have the utmost respect for Freedom of Religion — and totally understand that the Gay Marriage issue is distressing to so many people — religious or not.)
But … Gay people have always been a part of my social circles. I was practically raised by gays — grew up in the “Stonewall” days of Greenwich Village.
“Gays” and “Straights” lived together in undifferentiated perfect harmony there — as long as we all stayed below 14th Street.
The Gay community was one part of the artistic counter-culture. It was great fun to be a part of the counter-culture — (sub, artistic, or counter-culture has long had a good function and benefit to society in general (testing limits — questioning — challenging — generating and instigating “conversations” about values — poking fun — being the object of poked fun, etc., etc.) … as long as it is only a very small number of people doing that — and as long as it doesn’t BECOME the society, or take it over(ugh!)(like it seems to have done in so many ways these days — which it NUTS!). — What’s the fun in that?
My Gay friends didn’t want to have “legal marriages” — as a matter of fact, they enjoyed ridiculing such “conventions.”
A few did have (non legal) wedding ceremonies performed by friendly ministers — and considered themselves married couples. But then, so did the “straights.”
It’s difficult for me to understand why Gay people feel the need to be legally “married” — as long as they have the same legal rights. And I don’t understand the fierce, almost fanatic attitudes — including this extreme hatred that’s been exhibited (maybe it’s just the Leftist habits so many have formed.)
Isn’t it IRONIC that while there is a great increase in the number of co-habiting “straight” people — even after having several children — that Gays insist on making so much fuss about legalizing Gay Marriage? In light of the trend, is this just another way to be “un-conventional” — rather than what seems to be the opposite?”
I guess they will prevail sooner or later in this … if they want it — they’re a small minority and won’t “replace” marriage between a man and a woman — but …
MOST PEOPLE JUST AREN’T READY for this change in the “family unit” that has prevailed since the beginnings of civilization. Why don’t the Gays give the people a BREAK! Let people get used to Civil Unions and ease acceptance in?
Most people will eventually come around.
But it should never in any way be “required” that Religious people not speak their minds.
No — it’s not the same as “racism!!” It’s not about the “Gays” — it’s about the “Institution” that is a part of our basic social structure.
My opinion is, every human should have the right to declare a Civil Union … whether it be with a lover, a non-sexual relationship with a friend or a relative — so that they could receive the legal benefits … inheritance, health/hospital rights, etc. Co-habiting and non-co-habiting Single people have equal rights too — which are not being respected.
I don’t really care either way if Gays want to be married … one of the things I object to is all the NOISE about it. Gays are a small percentage of the population. Why must there be so many TV shows with Gay characters (an occasional one would be okay — the way it is in most of the country) — but it’s OVERDONE (probably because so many Gays are in the performing and other arts — narcissism being a prevalent trait among artists) — (I’m not censoring — just saying…) So much yak, yak, yak about it — Do they really need and warrant so much attention? Who cares so much about their “sexuality!?” Not me! I don’t want to hear about it all the time.
Attention — that’s it. I think — a lot of — this whole demand about “Marriage” as opposed to “Civil Unions” is more about getting attention than anything else. I might be wrong about that — but that’s how it strikes me.
What I AM APPALLED at is books aimed at primary schoolers that force the little ones to deal with “sexuality” and “sexual preferences” — “MIMSY HAS TWO MOMMIES,” etc. OMG! Don’t little ones have enough to deal with — childhood is hard enough — just trying to grow up in their own skin and develop a sense of themselves in the world — without being put in a position (being told by Lefty teachers) that it’s up to themselves to “choose” their sexuality — (which is what it will appear to the kids to be.) HOW CONFUSING!
(Teaching and encouraging them(strongly) not to bully anyone — and to just be decent and nice — should suffice!) Of course, it isn’t necessary to put books like “Two Mommies” in the school program — but, at the moment, the Lefties have control … and so it will be so if and whenever Gay Marriage becomes universally legal. (I think it’s already in California primary schools.) If they could do it — the Gay Marriage thing — and leave the children alone, it would bother me less —
Until I was assured of that — and until they stop acting like insane fascists — I’ll vote “NO!”
They want to be happy, but they never will. Unfortunately for them they have been given a tremendous burden.
Unfortunately for us they are easily manipulated by smarter people who hate America, Christitanity, and Western Civilization.
“Marriage” will not make them happy. If gay people are unhappy, they will do their utmost to make us all unhappy.
You know what I just realized!!! W E ‘ V E B E E N H A D !!! ALL OF US !!!
While this has been going on all week, and we’re demonstrating and talking, talking –
Do you realize what we’re NOT TALKING ABOUT!? YES, THAT’S RIGHT!!
The Economy, Fast & Furious, Non-Transparent Coffee Shop “Chief Executive” meetings!
Our disasterous foreign policy!
Romney’s successful overseas visits!
It’s been another O-win week!
A week not talking about the economy, is a won week for The O.
It reflected on the Mayors — the O got a wash on it!
This is not a major issue for most voters.
Do you really think that clever Rahm Emmanuel didn’t know the backlash his outrageous proclamation would cause???
What a bunch of dummies we all are.
Did the writer not mean ‘principal pillar’ rather the ‘principle pillar’?
Its been almost discussed in the comments, what is (state) marriage really about?
It originally was primarily a legal framework, a default contract, for recognition of the status of shared possessions, most importantly children, should the marriage dissolve, whether tragically, death of one or both spouses or by divorce.
Today this is no longer the case as could be seen in divorce battles and even adjustments going in, a’la pre-nups.
The overriding state issue today is becoming “what do I get from the state!”
ie, Death benefits, social security etc, from the other. So, the argument for gay marriage is easily “Hey, I want that too”, fair enough, if fairly argued.
Therefore, state marriage has run its course and should be ended, not ‘fixed’, right now its just another avenue for the growth of government.
Couples, of all sorts, should draw a contract live, abide, and agree to the consequences should the contract be broken.
Simple enough, get government out, let people live and be accountable for their agreements.
The author wrote: “[Mr. Klavan is] not even convinced that the possibility of such a moral hazard is a compelling reason to keep people from doing whatever they bloody well want with their private lives.”
No one is keeping people from “doing whatever whatever they bloody well want with their private lives.” False premise #1 dispatched.
He then wrote: “As for the ideas that being gay is unnatural or a sin per se — that is, a sin whether it does any earthly harm or not — I reject them outright.”
I expect more than this from Mr. Klavan. First, if he is a Christian, then he is aware it is a sin. Second, if he is a member of any other major religion, then he also knows that it is a sin. If he is a non-believer, then we should look to the other (false) assertion he makes, i.e., that homosexual behavior is unnatural. Here, either Mr. Klavan is unaware of context in writing, which seems unlikely as he is a successful author, or he is being a sophist. I tend to think it’s the latter, probably because he doesn’t quite have the courage to be openly opposed to changing the legal definition of marriage.
CORRECTION: *If he is a non-believer, then we should look to the other (false) assertion he makes, i.e., that homosexual behavior is not unnatural.*
YEA!!! GAY RIGHTS!!!
Meanwhile, Congress prepares to give itself raises, cancel cost of living increases for senior citizens, increase taxes, and spend more of the taxable income from suckers, er, I mean citizens, on campaigning for their next election cycle.
YEA!!! GAY RIGHTS!!!
ROMNEY IS A SEXUAL DEVIATE; CAN’T HANDLE HIS MONEY; HATES GAYS, ALL MINORITIES, MUSLIMS, JEWS, CATHOLICS, U.S. MILITARY; ALL PHYSICALLY AND MENTALLY IMPAIRED!
YEA!!! GAY RIGHTS!!!
Check out the money trail to the anti-gay groups CFL is involved in…including hate groups in UGANDA that kill gays out right…if you were more connected with the problem…Either if you were gay or you knew someone close that was gay…maybe if you knew someone that committed suicide because they were gay in this society…You would understand. I am not gay, but I am protesting tomorrow by a Chic Fil A…just to let them know how wrong it is to be a bigot. And please if you ‘like’ gay people like you say you do…you would do the same. Just my 2 cents. You really ‘like’ gay people huh? Glad I came across this post.
Dear Sophist, I mean Joe,
You wrote the following: “Check out the money trail to the anti-[homosexual political activist] groups CFL is involved in…including []groups in UGANDA that kill [homosexuals] out right[.]”
Prove it. Please name the groups.
“[I]f you were more connected with the problem…Either if you were [engaged in homosexual behavior] or you knew someone close that was [engaged in homosexual behavior]…maybe if you knew someone that committed suicide because [he was engaged in homosexual behavior] in this society…You would understand.”
This marginally literate sentiment rests on several faulty assumptions, so, let’s explore one: In order to believe what you wrote above, you must first (falsely) assume that knowing someone who engages in homosexual behavior automatically makes you mindlessly sympathetic to people engaged in same. Of course, that is false (and you probably no it, but didn’t want that to get in the way of your moralizing). You see, I have a sibling that is in a homosexual relationship, yet, I still continue to believe the behavior is wrong, both as a matter of faith and reason. In addition, I refuse to be bullied into supporting those who want to legally redefine marriage.
I have also noticed that the most intolerant bigots that I have ever encountered are Leftists who support the homosexual behavior normalization agitators. And, when called on their bigotry toward those defending real marriage and a more wholesome sexual culture, they quickly acknowledge their hatred and claim it is justified.
“I am not [a homosexual], but I am protesting tomorrow by a Chic Fil A…just to let them know how wrong it is to be a bigot.”
Do you have any self-awareness? A bigot protesting being a bigot? First, nothing that Chick-Fil-A has done as a corporate entity, nor any of the officers or directors as individuals, is bigoted. What the mayors and some other busy-body-control-freak-Democrats have done is bigoted. I think the problem is that you don’t actually know what the word means. So, here is the definition: bigot – a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his own opinions and prejudices. In other words, someone who can’t abide others with different points of view. In the present case, a man who owns a chicken company made some comments that are uncontroversial and correct. Then, a bunch of Leftist kooks with government power tried to threaten and bully the chicken company. Next, people voted with their wallets by showing up to Chick-fil-A to support the substance of the comments (i.e., protecting the current legal definition of marriage) and to oppose the authoritarians who want to silence speech they don’t like. Finally, a bigot like you comes to a website and leaves a post calling people bigots. Take some pictures of you and the other wackos at your protest so we can see what a tiny of a minority you and your kind of “thinking” are.
Of course, the high suicide rate by homosexuals MUST be oppression, right? It couldn’t be another symptom of damage done that caused the homosexuality? There’s actually a bit of recent work published showing a strong correlation between being sexually abused as a child and being homosexual as an adult.
Who woulda thunk it? Premature sexualization leading to sexual problems (as well as emotional problems) as an adult?
Great article. One caveat: There is nothing neutral and harmless about homosexuality. It destroys the people who participate in it and destroys the societies that condone it.
Well we really are talking about definitions here. I am a fence sitter on this one. I do see both sides of the argument but first conclude that the over activism is helping the pro gay marriage loose support. It is reactionary and to be honest nobody is being won over by this tactic. Their vitreol volume is absured, nobody in the US of A is being executed for their sexual preferance and oh by the way the gay folks that got to the White House last week and posed in front of the official portrait of Reagan while flipping him the “Bird” won no favor with me yet Harvey Milk is a hero for all Americans because of what? More than a few of Milk’s lovers committed sueicide, the man was a train wreck so I’ve read. Back to definitions, Marriage was singular and plural but never before was it for same sex. So that would be one definition to be changed. A male participant was called a “Groom” and became a husband and has traditionally been a male role. A Bride who becomes a wife is traditionally a female role. Traditionally a marriage consisted of one of each to become one unit. So we would have to change the deffinitions of more than one word to complete this desire by a very small portion of the population. I think most of this is addressed within Civil Unions. My biggest opposition is the married tax break. Look on the tax tables and around $35,000.00 and up see the tax for married filing jointly and single and around that point single starts paying more. Born in 54 I am a child of the 60′s, I caught the tail end of it, and concerning my Generations treatment of Tradition we do NOT have a good track record and actually many of the leaders of our opposition are from this era so I’m just not sure it should be all tossed aside because somebody said so. When I see some of Zombies posts of Gay Pride parades, I am not sure their community has shown full maturity yet either. Sex on the streets in front of children is deplorable gay or straight. As a on again off again “Pot Head” since late 69 I am for decriminalization but not for full legal endorsment as I do not see where as a society we’ve shown such great responsible behaviour that we deserve another legal intoxicant. In other words when we show ourselves to be responsible THEN possibly society can grant this too us. We used to have to earn stuff now they are demanded rights and if we do not get them, well then nobody is gonna get any rest, unfortunatly that IS democracy and we are a Republic. Some of the postings here claim that CFA donates to charities that kill gays, that is absured, the political Left is tied to all kinds of mass killers starting with the grand triad of Stalin Lennin and Mao but they are not shamed and they have provable solid links. The time may come but earn it, more than a few American traditions have been cast aside only to further nothing and Americanism gets further diminished.
I agree with every word in the article but the following:
“As for the ideas that being gay is unnatural or a sin per se — that is, a sin whether it does any earthly harm or not — I reject them outright. Homosexuality seems as much a part of nature as left-handedness and is probably much less annoying when using scissors. And if it is somehow offensive to God, that’s His business: I am specifically instructed to judge not in such matters and tend to my own manifold offenses.”
That homosexuality may be part of nature may be true, but not all things that are “part of nature” are to be accepted/embraced merely because they are part of nature. I’m certain that pedophilia was part of Sandusky’s nature (and part of the nature of some small segment of the population even though less prevalent than left-handedness). Other anti-social behavior may well be “part of nature” as well for ever diminishing minorities (speaking in percentages and not racially). It cannot possibly follow, however, that we (or at least those of us who hold out hope/faith in the Divine) are excused from an OBLIGATION to judge between good and evil (where good and evil are defined in a manner consistent with what we understand God to commend (good) and condemn(evil)), and to choose to conduct our lives accordingly. That OBLIGATION forces us to an exercise of self-control or restraint when tempted to condemnable (see my earlier definition) conduct that could readily be explained away or excused as part of our own individual nature. That it appeals to us and we feel powerless to resist is a rather weak and pathetic excuse for the abandonment of discipline necessary for a virtuous life. n.b., I am not opining here on the morality, immorality or amorality of homosexual conduct. I’m only challenging Klavan’s logic!
The attack on the company is astounding. Honored big city mayors make strong statements which are strongly Fascist. It results in long lines at the restaurants in reaction and crowds inside and outside. All those folks standing in line waiting for food are talking a lot and are all talking about politics.
The Left has pulled another trigger. The last time they did this there was spontaneous combustion which settled out as the Tea Party.
The gay marriage issue has not been examined. It has never been given a price in government services and payments as well as the same outside of government. New Regulations have been priced, why not this one? Will there be a price increase in operating Family Court? Will it have any increase in cost in running family services? How much will this impact Social Security Trust Funds? How much retroactivity in payment would there be?
What it is has never been defined. The full possibilities in the exact wording of every part of such laws has not been followed.
Will Gay Marriage lead to arresting priests and ministers for refusing to perform them? Will it leas to the extinguishment of any action of charity or social aid etc. which religious groups do? In short, does Gay Marriage have any social demolitionist content? How much will this give the governments another tool to control a person’s private life?
Will the wording of any statute be a foundation for expanding non-homosexual marriage? Will movie stars be able to gather up multiple husbands? Will Muslims feel America is a promised land in that in addition to being an originally Muslim land to be recovered, it is also a place where one can achive the Koran’s 4-babe limit, and also exceed it without getting busted by the Prevention of Vice cops. Will “animal husbandry” have a new meaning added to it?
All this should be cleaned up first as not even a person who does not care about what gays do, and has not paid attention to any of it as it is uninteresting or else private stuff, is in a position of not having enough information to make a decision.
Andrew, you’re my hero, so I’m trying to like your position. I, too, enjoy the company and talents of most gays (not all of course). For me, gay marriage is more of a politcal exercise than anything else. Are they asking for civil acceptance by demanding marriage rights or is there an extended hidden politcal agenda lurking in the corners? If that’s the case, I start to get concerned. OK, Andrew, I know you’re a Christian so you are familiar with the church being the Body of Christ with Jesus as it’s head. So the church’s body and our bodies are holy and what you do to both matters. What one person does to another person’s body matters. It’s obvious where I’m gong with this. And of course there’s always the inexplicable gay preferances. For me, I feel the gay community would exist in a much more tranquil world if they just lived there lives as they see fit without forcing the straigts into an uncomfortable position. Corey in Honduras
Keep in mind that the modern American Leftist has generally despised notions such as “marriage.” The assault of Chick-Fil-A has nothing to do with “marriage” or equal rights – it is nothing more than a proxy war to mutate American society, redefine words, and rewrite history.
There is a simple, secular, objective reason for any self-described libertarian and/or small-government conservative to not accept “gay marriage” as a “right.” The term, “marriage,” was derived by the Christian Church in France in the mid 13th century, and defined as a matrimonial bond between one man and one woman in the presence of clergy. To argue for “gay marriage” as a “right” is to argue for government intervention in religion.
Conversely, no self-described libertarian and/or small-government conservative should find it acceptable for the government to dictate what marriage is not – the two issues are opposite sides of the same coin. Instead, advocates should learn to differentiate and specify – they should be advocating for equal privileges under a secular CIVIL UNION in the presence of a judge.
Someone Who Likes Gay People .. in Defense of Chick-Fil-A
Gotta love the not-so-subtle suggestion that Chick-Fil-A dislikes gay people!
Opposing “gay marriage” is not the same thing as hostility towards gay people.
When should anybody “like” gay people? The term “gay people” encompasses some people worthy of being liked, and others deserving of being disliked. Much like the terms “tall people” or “white people”.
if it is somehow offensive to God, that’s His business: I am specifically instructed to judge not in such matters and tend to my own manifold offenses.
I’m not sure which God you worship, but that is not the God of Christianity and Judaism. He does not instruct you to judge not in such matters.
I’m not convinced — not even convinced that the possibility of such a moral hazard is a compelling reason to keep people from doing whatever they bloody well want with their private lives.
Marriage is not your “private life”. Marriage is part of your public life. That’s the entire point of marriage – that it is public. It’s a commitment made in front of God and the whole wide world, a commitment which everyone else agrees to honor and respect. There is nothing you can do which is less private than marriage.
(Prefatory Note: I already said this on another thread. But it’s such an important point, and it’s equally topical here. So, sorry for the repetition.)
Andrew Klavan has it right.
It is not about the gay thing!
It’s about opposing haughty self-righteous censorious oppressive dweebs.
Chick-Fil-A’s chief expressed a religious/moral opinion in an obscure periodical.
It wasn’t even an anti-gay opinion; it was a pro-traditional-Christianity opinion which leftists, reading between the lines, reflexively interpreted as anti-gay.
Some politicians used this event as an excuse to pander to the less-sophisticated and more-fascistic segment of their left-leaning constituency. The pandering took this form: These politicians attempted to prevent Chick-Fil-A from doing business in the states/counties/wards where these politicians had authority (an abuse of office, certainly an unconstitutional suppression of Dan Cathy’s freedom of speech, and probably illegal in other ways also).
Now a lot of left-leaning folk realized this was crossing the line and said so. But as I said, the less-sophisticated and more-fascistic segment of the left cheered these crooked politicians on. Apparently the mantra of this portion of the left is something like, “Less free speech! More self-righteous haughty political correctness! More intimidation of business owners with politically incorrect opinions!”
Now, people with traditional American attitudes towards freedom don’t like this kind of thing. They were itching for a chance to exhibit contempt for these haughty self-righteous censorious oppressive dweebs, and it turned out that the easiest and tastiest way to do so was to buy a lot of food from the business the dweebs had been threatening.
So they did.
And, since this attitude towards the haughty self-righteous censorious oppressive dweebs intersects strongly with Tea Party membership and not Occupy Movement, the event was not violent and involved no public defecation, hate, or profanity, but instead featured a lot of friendly people genially enjoying their lunch and waving at one another.
There were gay people who went to Chick-Fil-A that day. Self-hating? No; they opposed haughty self-righteous censorious oppressive dweebs.
There were libertarians who favor gay marriage who went to Chick-Fil-A that day. Hypocritical? No; they oppose haughty self-righteous censorious oppressive dweebs.
There were Christians who are personally morally opposed to same-gendered persons engaging in mutual masturbation but who don’t agree with outlawing such private behavior there. Were they violating their religion by hating the sinner as well as the sin? No, they were just showing radical unconcern for haughty self-righteous censorious oppressive dweebs.
That is what the Chick-Fil-A appreciation day was ABOUT, folks.
The mainstream media, naturally, is spinning it as a frightening exhibition of the size of a resurgent Ku Klux Klan, or something. Don’t believe the hype.
So my dear Andrew….where is the meat to go with the potatoes?
You are human and are allowed a flub now and then I guess. Let this article be your flub for the year. Andrew if you are going to suggest I negate over two millennium (yes marriage predates Christianity and the act of one man one woman predates religion of any kind) of traditions that have built a mostly stable planet for the single smallest minority on earth, except maybe those that are left handed, then you had better give me some rock solid reasoning that isn’t based in emotions.
For those like Andrew who says we must not judge…please stop misconstruing the Bible and what judging actually is. We judge every single day and in every single way. We are judging by our action and our inaction. Sometimes we openly make judgments and we have a bedrock society that comes from judgment aka juries. Let us not lie to ourselves and others about what constitutes a judgment and the purpose behind judging. I will say point blank blunt and proclaim it quite honestly and loudly….I AM A JUDGER! Yep, I judge. I do it every single day and at almost every minute of every single day.
God said “judge not lest ye be judged”. What did he mean by that? Well I suppose we all have our various interpretations but the bottom line for me is it is God who will have the final say on who gets into heaven and who doesn’t. I think I will continue to judge so that I maybe just might make God’s list of who gets in and who doesn’t. That is one singular cut list I would like to make.
To all those do gooders out there who really want to make the argument that homosexuals are born that way and therefore natural…please don’t. Quit helping because you really are not helping in the slightest. Lots of freaks of nature and mistakes are born at all levels of nature every single day and nature doesn’t accept them. Nature is quite democratic in that the majority does indeed rule. I accept that serial killers are born every single day however I don’t accept their behavior. As a matter of fact we as in society reject it without exception. So please don’t use logical fallacies as an acceptable argument. Tell me why one of the smallest minorities on the planet should be allowed to change the natural order of things logically and be sure to include why it would be better overall for society and civilization because in reality that is the bottom line.
It is clear that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin. It is also clear that the Bible teaches that if we have sin in our life then we have no right to condemn others for sin.
Jesus said that the 2nd greatest commandment is to love our neighbor as our self.
Any Christian who believes and tries their best to practice at least those aspects of the Bible cannot be a “hater”. If they form any group to promote any Christian value, such as traditional marriage, it cannot be a “hate group”.
It is just plain annoying to be labeled something I am not just for disagreeing with the left, many libertarians and a hand full of left leaning or centrist conservatives.
I will never march in lock step with the left no matter how much they try to belittle me and others who think like I do. I do not believe that the left has the only answers or solutions to life and that if you very just slightly (like Jon Lovitz did recently) then you must be punished with the full wrath of the left.
Disagreeing with the left does not automatically make you a hater, a bigot, a racist, a sexist, anti-gay or any of the other “sins” the left through their own version of the Spanish Inquisition has accused you of.
Take it from a Canadian…it does not stop with gay “marriage”. It then becomes mandatory to teach children (of ALL ages) in our schools that any lifestyle is acceptable and normal (without any reference to possible perils); to eliminate gender; to increase the importance of the accomplishments of homosexuals; to denegrate people of faith; to create new laws to protect a special “class” of people; to force everyone to accept the lifestyle with no questions asked (and the persecution/prosecution of anyone who does ask). In Ontario our publicly funded schools (including Catholic)are now forced to promote homosexuality in all areas of study; parents are not allowed any choice or advance notice (and homeschoolers/private schools are next). Our “Catholic” Ontario Premier has publicly stated his intention is “to change attitudes”. Believe it….it never ends and will never end until all Judeo-Christian values are banished from society.