Posted on 03/22/2013 5:30:49 AM PDT by Kaslin
Just because things can be put on the same list doesn't mean they are necessarily similar. My attic contains within it thousands of comic books, an inflatable bed, some jigsaw puzzles, some family pictures and a "Frampton Comes Alive!" album. These things are, roughly speaking, in the same location, but they're hardly of equal value, importance or function.
I bring this up for the simple reason that we're hearing a lot about how the GOP must deal with "abortion and gay marriage" as if they are almost the same issue.
Well, in my house, I hear about my dog and my mortgage a lot. They're both important -- and complicated in their own ways -- but they aren't all that similar.
I think some liberals and some conservatives like to lump all social issues together, at least in part because they find their opponents' positions on them so unfathomable. It's like if an alien showed you a fnerk, a thrampahorn and a zizzenbozzle you'd be forgiven for assuming they're all somehow related to each other.
In fact, for a long time the shorthand for social issues was "God, guns and gays." And a lot of analysts thought they would move all together. It turns out that various social issues stand or fall on their own.
If you'd predicted in the late 1980s that the country would become more pro-life, more pro-gun and more pro-gay the experts would've laughed at you. It drives some older liberals crazy that some young liberals are insufficiently pro-choice and it vexes some older conservatives that some young conservatives are insufficiently anti-gay marriage.
I myself have grown both more pro-life and more sympathetic to gay marriage.
I've been in favor of civil unions for more than a decade -- back when it was considered a left-wing position, not a fallback right-wing one. And I'd probably still prefer civil unions if we had settled on some arrangement that conferred the economic and legal benefits of traditional marriage without calling it marriage. Still, gays have an entirely understandable reluctance to settle for that and, besides, I think the argument over whether or not to call civil unions marriage has been all but lost, though there's a glimmer of hope the decision might eventually be left to the states (which I favor).
As for abortion, my migration has less to do with religious arguments and more to do with my growing distrust of the government. Who is and who isn't a human being with unalienable rights is just about the biggest question there is. And just because the answer is usually obvious -- that guy, not that fly -- only makes it more important.
The government has an obligation to protect the life and liberty of the subset of human beings we call "Americans." If you commit a crime that obligation changes, of course, since the government also has an obligation to protect the rest of us from those who would do us harm.
Well, I consider a fetus a human being. It has done no harm, nor has it committed a crime punishable by death. More important, I don't like it when governments start getting clever about who counts as full human beings and who doesn't (See: Slavery, U.S., or Holocaust, Nazi). There are few areas where a bright line is more vital or necessary. (I'd bet it won't be very long before science is able to tell us whether some fetuses will grow up to be gay or not. The politics of abortion will suddenly get more interesting, I suspect.)
But once you're born, and -- hopefully -- properly raised, the government's chief obligation is to stay out of your way -- whether you're straight or gay -- so you can pursue happiness as you define it -- not how, say, Michael Bloomberg or Pat Robertson define it.
Which brings me back to gay marriage. Opponents of same-sex marriage insist gays have the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex as anyone else. It's a clever line, but it overlooks the fact that romantic love has been the paramount reason for marriage for quite some time. Telling people they're free to be unhappy isn't all that persuasive.
The whole point of the American way is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So, come to think of it, maybe gay marriage and abortion have more in common than I thought.
Both are family destroyers.
The first human institution is the primary target of Satan and his minions.
They are indeed
Pro- gun, pro-life, and anti- gay here.
Now when I say anti-gay do not get me wrong.
I have nothing againstgay people who keep their problem to themselves and don’t try to shove it down my throat.(No pun intended.)
They are peaople just like anyone else.
Some people prefer the Missionary position, some with the woman on top, some with other little activities in between.
I do not judge anyone on their style, but normal people do not go around telling everyone what their style is.
The buttholes bandits , and carpet munchers seem to have a need to put their sex life out in front for everyone to see.
Now I understand a bit of that desire.
They are not men or women, who by their very gender appeal to the opposite gender.
They are freaks of nature who must outwardly show their preference so that others with their sickness will be attracted by them, I can see that. They are constantly trying to recruit others so that their repertoire of sexual partners can grow.
I can understand that also.
But it doesn’t mean I have to like it or agree with it.They are a pathetic lot trying to make themselves relevant ,a bit like they are from another dimension trying to fit into a world where they are seldom wanted.
Family structure, and the raising of children in a stable environment, helps society in many important ways. There will be vast consequences if an "anything goes" approach is accepted.
The Left knows this very well. That's why they are pushing in this direction. They are destroyers.
Many Conservatives fail to see what the Left is doing.
The same could have been said when Progressives pushed for popular election of senators, or for the Federal Reserve, or the income tax, or for changes in government schools. The Left thinks long-term. They work toward a plan, with an anticipated payoff far in the future.
Many Conservatives look back at the past 100+ years and fail to learn the simple lessons. Some take a Libertarian approach and say "Let's get government out of the marriage business". This plays right into the Left's hands. Joint property ownership? Custody of children? You think these things are so incredibly simple and problem-free that no government involvement will be necessary?
One side wants Chaos.
The other side shrugs and says, "It will probably work out OK."
The point is: the proponents of this stuff do NOT want it to work out "OK".
So Jonah’s logical argument in support of homosexual “marriage” revolves around the idea’s acceptance by a greater number of people and that it will make homosexuals happy?
Either method is legitimizing destruction of the family.
Great post, and I feel the same way you do
I think the finesse solution is to get the government out of the marriage busines. Issue a civil union license to any couple that wants it and then leave it to the churches to decide if they want to marry any given couple without any government interference. Sure, liberal churches like the UU will conduct marriages but most churched won’t.
I am forced to support the right of adults to enter into mutually binding contractual agreements. That’s freedom. Demanding churches sanctify those contracts is slavery.
That Frampton Comes Alive ALBUM IS PRICELESS!.........Do you feel like I do?.......
Horse pucky. Marriage is about raising children, period. The left wants to destroy the family so that the government raises the children to be lifelong dependents.
Can you please explain how government is not part of this?
At some point, the government, both state and federal, will have to give the same tax breaks to homosexual ‘marriages’ as they do to heterosexual marriages, under the Equal Protection clause. Then there will be a huge upsurge in fake marriages simply to save tax money. Then the governments will have revenue holes to fill. Guess where they will get those ‘lost’ tax revenues?..............
Yeah. I said get out of the marriage business, not the contract business. It’s a civil union license not a marriage license. I cant make it any simpler.
If both spouses work, they pay more in taxes by being married. The joint return was originally intended to save married people money, but it works that way only when there is only one income earner.
But, probably not at Thanksgiving when the debates get nasty. There's just something about Thanksgiving that gets people all riled up.
Really love your homepage, but, for Heaven sake, Kaslin, get ahold of yourself and rescue "Frampton Comes Alive!" album from the attic and immediately put it in your music rotation!
Yup!
Thanks...
and Giving...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.