Get PJ Media on your Apple

Roger L. Simon

Don’t Take the Bait on Gay Marriage

June 27th, 2013 - 12:03 am

Look inside yourself and stop making this absurd, straw-man argument for which there is no serious real-life corroboration in the U.S., only in the Islamic world.

(That means you, Dennis Prager. You’re too smart for that kind of sophism.)

One thing Obama and his minions thrive on is distraction — and protest of gay marriage will be distraction one, I promise you.

Play offense, not defense.

You want some offense to play? Here’s a few: the IRS, Benghazi, Obamacare, the dreadful economy, massive unemployment, a deficit the size of Mars, fifty million people on food stamps, every citizen in the country being spied on, scientific nonsense about global warming, the blocking of U.S. energy resources, kowtowing to Islamofascists, Fast and Furious and the rest of the misuses of the Justice Department, porous borders, Mexican drug cartels, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, the Muslim Brotherhood, nuclear Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, al-Qaeda, al-Nusra, etc., etc., etc.

All that and you still want to worry about gays getting married?

Excuse me if I think you’ve got your priorities out of order?

And one last thing: you can’t have everything. No one can.

If you’re so worried about gays getting married, take the fight to where it should be fought — family, friends, clergy, our personal lives. In other words, the private sphere. Leave this one out of government control. They’re dealing with a lot more than they can handle as it is.

(Thumbnail on PJM homepage based on a modified Shutterstock.com image.)

<- Prev  Page 2 of 2   View as Single Page

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Gay people — the ones who are getting married anyway — want to be bourgeois like you. We’ve all met tons of gay people but very few (if any) polygamists and not a single person who is sleeping with their mother and/or sister.
You are correct, Roger, as far as that goes, but you are forgetting what the whole underlying intent behind Same Sex Marriage (SSM) was: to undermine traditional marriage, as part of a desire to wreck "normal" society. The actual gay couples are sincere in their desire to simply have what other couples have, but those who are behind the whole process have the darkest of motives. They want to knock the underpinnings out from under society's feet. "Why?" is another issue, but this is their intent.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"Make peace with your gay neighbors, friends and relatives."

Roger, this would be great advice if (1) I had some kind of personal beef with my gay neighbors, friends and relatives, and (2) if I were the aggressor in the dispute.

But I don't have a personal beef, and yes, I do have gay neighbors, literally next door. And whatever "fight" is going on, I was not the one who picked it.

DOMA was a stupid law because Congress has no business mucking about in marriage laws, which are the responsibility of each state. I am personally opposed to SSM but if it were passed by a straight (no pun intended) vote by the people of my state, then that, in my opinion, is the way to handle the decision. And if people in the next state want to vote agin it, let them live the way they want to live, and let everybody move to and live in the state or community where the are most comfortable.

If it isn't clear by now, no, I don't think marriage is a right. A right is something an individual possesses by the very fact of being human, which does not force another to produce goods or services or transactions that violate that other person's rights to, say, free speech or freedom of religion. Housing, education and jobs are not rights. They are clearly goods and services which cost the producer time and labor for which the producer should be compensated at market value (ie what a voluntary exchange would cost). To force a producer to produce without these criteria is to make a slave of him or her.

Marriage is more subtle a transaction than the goods and services listed above but it is still, I would stipulate, a social transaction and not a right. First it is a transaction between the people getting married. Second it is a transaction between "the new unit" (the newly hitched) and the community at large: "we will arrange our domestic life according to the rules and definitions of 'being married,' and in exchange, you the community will grant us the label, status & benefits of being married."

This second transaction, between New Unit and Larger Community, is the locus of the dispute. New Unit wants recognition to be referred to by the title of "Married." Larger Community says, sorry, you don't fit the definition (not something capricious, mind you, just the really basic definition of pretty much every society on every continent over thousands of years).

Okay, impasse. New Unit's response to denial of recognition can go in a couple of directions. New Unit can try reasoning, persuasion, relationship building, etc, figuring that "recognition" by Larger Community will be both meaningful and permanent if and only if such recognition is freely given. OR ... New Unit can attack instead, via ridicule, slapping on the bigot label, intimidation and the use of pure political power, and proceed to force recognition by the least democratic political channels (the courts). In the second approach, the social transaction that is "recognition" or "validation" by the Larger Community may be gained, but it will have been accomplished via political-social-economic force, and it will have come at a terrible price, which is the utter destruction of any goodwill and trust between New Unit and the Larger Community.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Shouldn't we be concerned about stories like this:

"State sues florist over refusing service for gay wedding"
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020743969_floristlawsuitxml.html

"Gay couple refused by photographer discriminated against: Court "
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/gay-couple-refused-photographer-descriminated-court-article-1.1090457

"Gay Couple Files Discrimination Complaint Against Colorado Bakery"
http://gawker.com/gay-couple-files-discrimination-complaint-against-color-511814443

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (264)
All Comments   (264)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
This was and is a sideshow of a sideshow "see the conservative reveal themselves, mean, stingy, racist..." whatever. and we do reveal ourselves as idiots who time and again follow Obama's,(and I don't know who elses, but I'm working on it) carrot into the LOSER category 2016.
we need to play nice. very nice and let the rancorous ObamaBots reveal themselves for a change. Then we might pick up a few voters rather than lose many, because who elects to be on the losing team. well. besides me.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Future articles we can look forward to from Roger Simon?

"Christianity punishable by death penalty? Just a minor distraction, pay no attention!"
"Banning the Bible and other Religious Texts: Don't Take the Bait"
"Gay men demanding you divulge their desires? Just do them and move on!"

Man I'm sorry, Roger, you really dropped the ball on this one!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Perhaps the most upsetting part of this marriage debate was the way polygamy was dismissed as a red herring, like incest or pedophilia.

Remember that white-bread, Wall-Street, Harvard-educated, former governor & candidate for US President, Mitt Romney? You know, the guy who was too "boring" to fire up the Republican base? He's descended from a polygamist family.

Yes, yes. Modern Mormons no longer practice polygamy. Not my point. The point is that there was a large population of Americans willing to go to jail over the issue. The US government nearly declared war on them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_War

Polygamysts are not a slippery slope. They are quite real & you'd better believe they're planning on using the recent court decisions to bolster their case.

Left-wingers may drag their feet on modern polygamists. They don't have much sympathy for fundamentalist, blonde-hair/blue-eye folk in the American Southwest. But check out the following stories:

http://asianweek.com/2002_11_22/news_polygamy.html

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90857818

Can you see why the left might change its tune on this issue, Roger? Can you anticipate the pivot away from judgement & towards tolerance? Polygamists will never be as fashionable as homosexuals. But they don't need to be. If they can just shift to using immigrants as their public face, they'll be quite successful.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
not just polygamist either. Time for the Man Boy Love Club to re-emerge. did anyone say Amnesty International?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
How about this, we no longer read any of Roger's garbage?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Dennis Prager agrees with "I was Don Rodrigo" in that SSM redefines the nature of marriage. In fact, Dennis says, "Marriage is the building block of society. Changing its nature will therefore change society. Among other things, same-sex marriage means that because sex (now called "gender") no longer matters for society's most important institution, it no longer matters in general." (http://www.dennisprager.com/columns.aspx?g=d9fb0980-9c95-48e8-a493-86b965c7d5ee&;). Roger misses the point about SSM redefines the structure of marriage and seems to be saying that there are no good arguments against SSM so give up and move on. Because polygamy is rare misses the point about the redefinition -- it renders the gender composition and number of parties involved arbitrary and irrelevant. I agree with Dennis that men and women are not interchangeable. There is something unique to being a man and being a woman that they bring to a marriage and parenting. That doesn't mean that single-parent families and gay couples can be good and loving -- because they can. But all things being equal, a man and a women preferred over other forms. For 200 years our country has acknowledged this different by promoting and protecting the definition of traditional marriage. If we are to refine it upon what basis? And who's definition today and who's tomorrow. The other battles we face are important but foundation issues are important. But we must be kind and respectful with others who don't agree.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Roger, Roger, marriage is between a man and a woman. There really is no debate.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Yeah... just give them what they want and let's move on... get this divisive issue behind us and they can't call us bigots anymore. Same thing with illegal immigration - just get it behind us and we can move on to OUR agenda.

Hey, I know... let's appoint a black Secretary of State... then they can't call us racist anymore. Then we'll appoint the first female Secretary of State... no more calling us sexist knuckle-draggers. Wait!! Make that a BLACK WOMAN! Then we'll never have to listen to their evil name-calling again!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
While we're at it, let's forget the Holocaust ever took place? Ya know, move on, stop worrying about Israel and all that stuff that was decided decades ago. Let's not take the bait.

My point is, I saw other RINOs preeching the same stuff. Turns out some of us, perhaps many of us, are more passionate about moral values, than we are about auditing the Fed or turning the GOP into Democrat-Lite.
These same RINOs rarely win elections anymore, but they cash-in on the consulting fees, cause that's all it's about for them.

If the GOP faded out of existence, I would not lose any sleep, at least then the US would be approaching a moment of truth of some sort.

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Muslim man demands right to bring second wife to Ireland

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Muslim-man-demands-right-to-bring-second-wife-to-Ireland-83751472.html

Polygamist immigrants itching to impose their cultural norms on the xenophobic racist European Christian nation states. Multiculturalism and Diversity, tolerance, human dignity demands as Justice Kennedy argued.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Well, I have known a lot of gays, over the years, some friends and many of whom I am fond.

If they can arrange their lives so they are less lonely and more secure, I am all for it. They are people too, and have a serious burden which many do not have.

All many have are affinity relations, that is there friends. Many have some family ties that matter, some none at all. That is hard, I know from knowing them. I will not judge them, nor how they manage their lives: they are responsible for it good or bad.

We don't have to embrace their lives, but we do own them a duty of kindness, just like any other living creature.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 4 5 Next View All