Posted on 08/03/2012 4:19:35 PM PDT by agooga
Being a hardcore constitutionalist, conservative, agnostic AND supporter of gay-marriage is not always easy. I usually take a lot of heat from both sides, and I'm used to that.
With the Chick-Fil-A situation, I see both sides of the issue. I support CFA and I support the idea of gay marriage. What I don't support are the tactics used by the left to bully, intimidate, mock, deride and create false narratives to achieve their goal.
I'm angry at the left for creating hatred. I see and hear a lot of it because I have so many gay and liberal friends, and I hate to see them so angry and hateful, and I hate to see them putting out all of that negativity into the world. I feel like it's pollution, seeping out of their mouths and fingertips, spreading and touching us all. I feel like it's hurting us all. I know it's hurting me.
Sometimes I try to explain this to them. I have many Christian friends who are for traditional marriage, and I RESPECT their point of view. I acknowledge the fact that thousands of years of customs and tradition, millions of years of evolution, and various types of traditional upbringing and church doctrine has deeply encoded the idea of man/woman relationships and man/woman marriage on almost all of us. Some of us have been able and willing to make the leap to their side and accept the gay lifestyle as valid, but many of us have not.
My pro-gay friends equate the gay rights struggle with the cvil rights struggle, and there are SOME parallels, but not as many as they would think. Slavery, segregation and other forms of racial discrimination were actually encoded in the laws of the time. There are no laws that currently discriminate against gay people-- the issue is simply that there are no laws that specifically countenance gay people, and the right to gay marriage.
Is there prejudice from some in the hetero community? Yes. Is this prejudice based on a belief in one's intellectual or physical superiority? No. It's based on an IDEA, essentially. It's often based on the principle of morality. Traditionalists think that gay people are "doing something wrong" or "doing something that is unnatural." Some heteros think that gay people choose this lifestyle and believe they can change themselves-- but choose not to as an act of rebellion. This is not true.
Gayness is imprinted, in my opinion, just as anti-gayness is imprinted. Neither are clear, conscious choices that we make-- they are largely made for us by our genetics, upbringing, culture or some combination.
I ask that you not hate gay people for this reason.
But I also directly ask gay people and their supporters not to hate you and TRY to understand why traditionalists feel uncomfortable, threatened and even repulsed by the gay lifestyle. And rather than trying to push traditionalists off the edge of the cliff, I ask my pro-gay friends to try to lead these skeptics away from the cliff with respect, tolerance and compassion. So far, this plea has fallen mostly on deaf ears.
I operate under no illusions that we can wave a magic wand and heal the wounds of our nation, largely inflicted by anarcho-radical leftwing 60's retread tactics. But is it just me, or does no one understand that the more you push with brute force, the more the other side digs in it's heels to resist?
Gay marriage will likely be reality in America soon. That issue will be settled in the SCOTUS and it will be all over in a soundbite released on a Friday night before the justices go on summer vacation. I am sure of that. But we still have to live with each other.
So my question is this: Have these words meant anything to you? And is it worth trying to help other people understand one another a little more? Or is it none of my (or anyone's) business?
1. I do not hate gay people. I understand that in a free democratic society they have rights to privacy and to live their lives in the manner they choose.
2. I think (but am not sure) that I am OK with civil unions.
3. However, I am radically against same sex marriage and the use of reproductive technology (IVF, sperm donation, surrogate wombs) to create their children. This has far reaching empirical and social ramifications. Ontologically, it is all afoul. Marriage is teleological and cannot be changed at its core.
4. Radical gay advocacy I find pernicious, destructive, arrogant, and divisive.
No child is born predisposed to become a criminal, an enginner, a lawyer or a candlestick maker any more than they are predisposed to be gay. All are a product of their environment and what they are taught in growing up.
I couldn’t give a rat’s posterior whether someone is gay or not. When the gay community sees it as my business that I know theirs is where I drew the line in the sand. When this whole thing started to come into the public dialogue, the gay community would not accept Civil Unions as a solution to transfer and share legal responsibilities. That told me there was an agenda and that agenda is to strike at the basic principles of what our society and culture was founded.
With that said, I have no more concern for your self induced plight as I did before your letting us know about it.
The Sacrament of Holy Marriage was ordained by Jesus Christ and Sanctified by the Holy Spirit. It was never intended to be dragged into the mud by unbelievers. This includes Muslims, whose idea of marriage is equivalent to SEXIST SLAVERY. Marriage is not for someone to toy with in order to get tax deductions.. as the gay crowd would have.... with other demeaning characteristics to follow. Why would anyone in their right mind allow this SACRAMENT to be distorted to make them feel good. Let them call their alliances “UNIONS”. (or whatever they want to call their sodomite doings...) but “Unions” would be a good choice for a name, as it fits right in with the thuggery of buggery.
I'm sorry, the state's interest was in promoting child rearing and establishing paternity. That's it; everything else about marriage is an external ceremony. The state's role in giving approval for marriages was to document the marriage, and thus establish the paternity for children from that marriage. It was extended to promote the shared family assets and to continue those assets within the family after the death of an elder in that family. But that is an extension of the primary concern...
If child rearing is no longer a consideration, explain how today a state entity could justify regulating marriage? Let's say they never did regulate marriage before - how would you go about creating the framework for this regulation that makes even the slightest bit of sense instead of a wholesale power grab of a religious expression?
The only justification that would stand up would be children, and once the door is opened to gays calling themselves married, that justification is out the window.
No, marriage is the people's ceremony, with the state invited in for a very specific purpose which coincides with the people's desires. Having the state decide now what and who can get married simply for their political agenda disallows that invitation. And I honestly think this will become the straw that breaks the camel's back.
So let me get this straight (based on your posting history).
You are such a hard right conservative that electing Mitt Romney would ruin us forever (not Obama being re-elected).
But pro-gay marriage is an “interesting thought.” Of course not that you are “pro gay marriage” or anything... Or not a troll or anything either.
Sorry if I missed it in your diatribe, but this is not about marriage. The Chicken-Fil-A issue is about the intolerance the gay liberals have against TRUE freedom of speech.
Do you think bisexuals should be allowed to legally marry two people, one man and one woman?
Marriage is about reproduction. Most male/female couples can and will; male/male & female/female couples utterly can’t. “Gay marriage” is preposterous.
Maybe it’s something you can’t fully grasp untl you’ve had sex with intent of conception.
People that play in their poop repell me to my very core. There’s something broken in their brain. Not unlike sickos who go after children or animals.
Gay marriage is the ultimate line-in-the-sand. I won’t vote for a candidate who wavers even the slightest on this issue. Anyone open to such deviancy is someone I don’t trust on anything. If the courts try to impose it across the country, the whole country can crash-and-burn to oblivion as far as I care. I’d be supporting seccession.
Did you just give mitt rinomney the zot??
BS...
You can choose what hole you want to stick your peg into, one is evil, one is natural.
What ever you choose to do is up to you.
Here’s your challange - without using the words “fair” or “equal rights” explain to us how society will be improved by changing the definition of marriage. WHat’s in it for the 96%
Here’s your challange - without using the words “fair” or “equal rights” explain to us how society will be improved by changing the definition of marriage. WHat’s in it for the 96%
Thanks for the reply.
The poster is a social libertarian, not a conservative.
Conservatives believe in “an enduring moral order...”.
There is much overlap in conservatism with constitutionalism, but even constitutionalism can be of the liberal variety if teh Dems take control and the country Amends the Constitution to a hell on earth.
Without a healthly conservatism, there is no hope long-term to protect the Constitution from turning into bastion of statism.
I would suggest to the poster to study conservatism and its different areas, traditions, chapters, strains, etc.
Don’t confuse conservatism for libertarianism. They are not the same.
Caligula was a social libertarian too.
Thank you
You are not conservative.
Rock on sweet lady, rock on!
LOL!
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.