Never Straight But Gayly Forward
June 28th, 2011 - 1:25 pm
Trifecta: Gay marriage came to New York courtesy of a GOP assembly and a Democratic governor — not by judicial fiat. Is this a glimpse into the future of marriage across the country?
Bonus: You probably won’t be shocked to learn I’m pretty far to the left of my lovely and talented co-hosts on this one.
No, Mr. Green, you are not far to the Left of us. You are far to the Right of us. Libertarians believe in having almost no government. They believe in the State staying out of marriage. Barring that, they support laissez-faire marriage.
My view of the political spectrum (it is not a circle):
The Left…Totalitarian – Socialists – Democrats – Moderate Repbulicans;
moving Right… Conservatives – (l)ibertarians – (L)ibertarians – Anarchists.
Conservatives are not extreme. We are just to the Right of center, where 40% (a plurality) of the country is. We are mainstream America. Totalitarians and anarchists are the kooky fringes. Socialists (?%) and Libertarians (?%) are the extremists. About 20% of the country are Socialists or Socialists who pretend to be liberal Dems.
Gay marriage is the uniting of the extremes. It would be impossible if not for the control of our communications by these extremes, which convinces the 40% who are not Conservative or extreme.
Just because Libertarians make common cause with the extreme Left, does not mean you are to the Left of us. No, you are firmly to the extreme Right.
Uh, where is this Libertarian controlled media of which you speak?
As far as gay marriage, I really don’t understand the time and effort some people expend to fight it. Unless you depend on the government to tell what a marriage really is, not the legal definition, but what it means to you, then how does making same sex unions legal do any harm to you? Because showing tangible harm is the only leg to stand on if you want to oppose it. Otherwise, if two consenting adults want the legal protection that a government sanctioned union gives, who is anyone to deny them that simply because they disagree on the definition of the word ‘marriage’?
Making same sex marriage legal doesn’t force anyone to change how they define marriage and it doesn’t make their more traditional marriage any less special to them or those that care for them.
It has never been about marriage for them. This is simply an effort to normalize gay behavior in society. Most gays just do not care about gay marriage. It is propaganda. Government is force. They are trying to hijack the institution of marriage in order to force society to accept their disgusting sex habits as normal. I do not think kids should be being taught that it is normal. Homosexuality is a choice, a bad choice.
You seem to equate “normal” with “moral”. If one defines “normal” as the predominate way in which a thing is done, then no, homosexual relationships are not “normal” in the sense that most romantic relationships are between two members of the opposite sex. However, as long as the relationship is consensual in both directions, then it is moral.
I don’t think a person’s sexuality is a choice, but even if I did, I gave up a long time ago the idea that what two people do together in their bedroom is any grounds to judge what sort of people they are. For all I know, some of my closest friends do some freaky stuff behind closed doors but I don’t care. It’s how that treat each other and other people that matters.
I like to think that all my closest friends are doing some freaky stuff. But then, I’m an optimist.
And all it took was Tim Gill’s zillions of dollars threatening to unseat the squishy ones.
Which is better than when he used his zillions of dollars to buy the Iowa State Supreme Court for the same thing.
Conservatives are funny: Marriage is sacred and vital, so, ummm… let’s put the government in charge of it, then cry like toddlers with skinned knees when people who disagree with us get control of the big pot of power we created and use it against us.
And so it always goes with those that abusively engage in the tyranny of the majority. Sooner or later they become a minority and get hoisted on their own petards. There’s a moral lesson here, just not the one they were looking for.
And speaking of morals, for those who think homosexuality is a choice (I have no idea), and running with the premise that it’s immoral (I disagree) – does discouraging that choice actually increase morality? Morality grows through the exercise of free agency, and it’s stunted by the lack thereof. Your “solution” (continuing to run with your premises) will create people who are amoral in this regard (at best) and bitter anger and hatred (at worst). But there’s absolutely no way it promotes even your own version of morality, unless you believe in predestination in which case it’s all moot anyway. Sorry, but from over here the whole fighting gay marriage exercise looks like a useless and counterproductive exercise in frustration, regardless of one’s views on the topic.
Finally, the Federal government was not created to enforce religious beliefs. The founders were an exceptionally clever bunch, and to suppose that they accidentally left out some intent in that regard is a bit much to swallow. Strictly speaking, the Constitution leaves even the most uncontroversial crimes like murder and robbery to the states. To somehow believe that gay marriage deserves Federal attention in any regard is no more constitutional than, say, Obamacare.