What is it about "Marriage."

Free Republic | 12/4/03 | ArGee

[Jaysun]

But why didn't that misinformation cause them to embrace homosexual marriage?


Because homosexual marriage is so obvious. They tried, mind you, but failed. So they went back to the drawing boards and out came "civil unions". The misinformation comes in the implication of what civil unions are. The left says that it's just two adults living together like anyone else who shouldn't be discriminated against. I say that it's homosexual marriage under a new name. That's it. I still say that this isn't going to make sense to us because it's a brainchild of the left. Now, I really do believe that if the public understood that "civil unions" is just a name game they'd readily reject it in the same way that they rejected homosexual marriage. Our job is to figure out how to let them know.

[ArGee]

Argee, The only reason for someone to support 'civil unions but not 'homosexual marriage' is that they are lying to themselves.

I want to believe that the majority of Americans are still smarter than that.

Maybe I'm just a fool.

Shalom.

[ArGee]

"Distinctions without a difference" can function to make proposed changes more palatable sometimes.

I've been trying to avoid coming to the conclusion that the majority of Americans are really that stupid.

Are they?

Shalom.

[hunter112]

What am I missing?

ArGee, we've back-and-forth'd on this in the past, so I don't expect you to accept my answer, but since you asked, here goes:

Americans like to see themselves as a fair-minded people. We've been taught since childhood that our country stands for opportunity and freedom that other nations can only envy. On the other hand, we also realize that equality of result cannot be handed out to those on the outs in our society, unlike the way things are done in socialist nations. We believe in the right of people unlike us to earn money, build up estates, and gain the respect of the community. But we don't necessarily want someone "different" from us being able to do it right next to us. We don't want our kids losing jobs because of affirmative action, we don't necessarily want minority groups climbing the ladder to prosperity in our neighborhood (especially while they're still on the lower rungs), and many people who want to see gays treated fairly don't want them using marriage as the name of the institution that gets them respectability.

The parallel for this was the treatment of black people in the century following the Civil War. Northern, white America was content to have fought and won the Civil War, while allowing "separate but equal" to be the law of the land. It satisfied the needs of the South, yet let Northern folks feel that at least black people had some opportunity. Our nation came face to face with the fact that there was not true equality for blacks in many places, as television brought the contrasting images of Martin Luther King and George Wallace into our living rooms in the 1960's. Today, the 24 hour news channels and the Internet bring images of gay people into our consciousness in a similar way, and while many people in the middle are comfortable with framing gay rights as a civil rights issue, they are uncomfortable with the all of a sudden (as they perceive it) rush from anti-discrimination laws, to gay marriage. It's like the days when people favored integration of schools, but didn't want their own kids bussed to the bad side of town.

Yes, gay marriage and civil unions are the same thing, but the people who say they are for CU, and not marriage, are just not quite ready to deal with the name issue. They still perceive gays as being significantly different from them to psychologically fall back on the "separate but equal" solution that Vermont has put on their radar screen. It appears (to them) to be a reasonable compromise, and people in what I call the "mushy middle" like compromise, rather than confrontation in dealing with political problems.

[ArGee]

Our job is to figure out how to let them know.

If what you wrote is, in fact, the truth, then the American people are too stupid, or too apathetic, for any of us to save.

Do you believe that?

Shalom.

[Political Junkie Too]

It walks, talks, and quacks like a duck.

But it doesn't if you accept the idea that marriage is about procreation, since homosexuals cannot procreate from within their relationship.

As far as the church acceptance of civil unions, perhaps it is a combination of several factors: 1) treat others as you would have others treat you (meaning you leave me alone to worship as I choose and I'll leave you alone to join as you choose, as long as we stay away from each other), or 2) homosexual infiltration of the clergy.

-PJ

[ArGee]

Yes, gay marriage and civil unions are the same thing,

I have to disagree with everything you wrote but this. People truly believed blacks were subhuman, primarly thanks to Darwinism (see my tag line). Therefore they created "separate but equal" facilities like they have for dogs. Once we learned that there were no subhumans we became comfortable with full integration.

However, from what I can tell everywhere I look, those of us who consider homosexuality to be the evidence of a mental illness are strongly in the minority and have no say in society whatsoever. That's why the majority support these homosexual marriages. What I can't understand is their love affair with the word "marriage" that makes it wrong to use that word.

Nice liberal rant, by the way. I'd love to discuss affirmative action with you on an affirmative action thread.

Shalom.

[longtermmemmory]

I see it as a multiple choice trick.

The left has used homosexual marriage to give the institution of marriage only choices which eventually abolish the existence of marriage.

In mass it is not about giving homosexual rights, even though it does that, it is about removing children from institution of marriage.

[ArGee]

But it doesn't if you accept the idea that marriage is about procreation, since homosexuals cannot procreate from within their relationship.

But men with vasectomies are allowed to marry. The issue is not even considered.

Shalom.

[retrokitten]

My company has that, too. We all think it's BS and raised the same issue you did about living with someone of the opposite sex. Of course, that is not covered. Total BS.

[Scenic Sounds]

I've been trying to avoid coming to the conclusion that the majority of Americans are really that stupid.

Are they?

Well, you know, I don't like to attribute the value of that phenomenon to stupidity. Oftentimes, politicians feel the need to change their positions and want to do so gracefully. I remember when the term "decriminalization" replaced the term "legalization" in the (still continuing) political wars concerning marijuana.

Like I said before, I really have no idea how this issue is going to shake out, but the creation of new terms in times of change is pretty common.

[ArGee]

In mass it is not about giving homosexual rights, even though it does that, it is about removing children from institution of marriage.

Even Alphas?

;)

What you wrote is scary. And I mean that quite seriously. I had not considered that possibility before, and I can not challenge your argument.

Shalom.

[Political Junkie Too]

Vasectomies can be reversed, sperm can still be extracted and implanted.

I'm not saying that people cannot get married unless they swear to have children, I'm saying that marriage came about by society blessing the couple to have children for the sustainment of the tribe.

-PJ

[longtermmemmory]

no, it is not the actual having of children. It is about reinforcing the man/woman is a father/mother structure of society. Every man is a father, every woman is a mother. This is regardless of the actual existence of children. It is about how we as a society raise our future.

Homosexuals want to base the future solely on having sex with members of the same sex.

[CJ Wolf]

Hey can you post what the benefits statement says or send it to me freepmail? Thanks.

[Jaysun]

Are Americans really just plain stupid to not see they are the same thing?


I'd say that Americans are either stupid, gullible, too passive, or have been subjected to liberal lies for so long that they seem reasonable. That's how the liberals have been able to promote things like: abortion clinics, openly promoting homosexuality and opposing Christianity, environmentalism, teams of lawyers to see if anyone feels intimidated, sensitivity training, and so on. They have a strangle hold on public education which hasn't hurt their disinformation campaigns and until recently the media was pretty much all theirs. In fact, the popularity of public radio and media outlets such as Fox News are exactly the kind of things that are contributing to the growing unpopularity of liberal nonsense.

[longtermmemmory]

more than just the tribe. Tribe is too primitive. Even in modern times the marriage institution must remain absolute. There are probate and inheritance issues to be addressed. Widow's and Widower's share, minimums to minor children, homostead protection, life estates.


Homosexuals have no claim to marriage since they ALREADY have the exact same rights they seek EASILY within the right to contract under cohabitation agreements, wills, and heathcare surrogates. This who situation comes about the left's desire to usurp children out of marriage and homosexuals desire to FORCE (rape society into) accepting their private sexual behavior with a public endorsement of normalcy.

[Modernman]

Thus, even though I may have shacked up with a chick and consider her a life partner unless I am 'married' I don't get to claim her as a dependent and thus I can not get all the goodies that a 'same gender' partner would

Your company only grants those rights to homosexuals since they do not have the right to get married. If they could get married, then the rule would change to cover all married couples and exclude all unmarried couples, regardless of the innie/outie combinations involved.

[Jaysun]

If what you wrote is, in fact, the truth, then the American people are too stupid, or too apathetic, for any of us to save. Do you believe that?



Not at all. I think that the American people are the greatest people on earth. My point is that we have to win the information war. We have to let them know WHY the left is opposed to school choice or whatever else the case may be. If we can promote honest and objectionable debate we'll win. The fact is that most people aren't as interested in politics as you or I may be. That being the case, they rarely have reason to question the motivation behind the liberal nonsense. Think about it. What if the next report about "antiwar protesters" ended with someone saying, "What do they want? The war is over for the most part. Are they against the building of roads and schools?" See? Most people don't think that way.

[Gorjus]

You declare your opinions as though they were facts. I may even share some of those opinions. But declaring opinions is not really advancing an argument. You're welcome to those opinions (and as I said, I even share some of them), but they 'prove' nothing. The issue is related to the specific concept of civil law recognition of the comitted union of consenting adults and within that, the proper role of government under the US Constitution.

I don't want a nanny state that 'pushes' all these social goals you list, even if I agree they are valid social goals if achieved by means other than government intervention. The question was whether there is a valid (meaning, consistent with our Constitution) basis for precluding secular government recognition of a non-marriage commitment. Marriage does not depend on government recognition, it is a blessing from God. Societies have recognized the commitment made at marriage with an accompanying secular status documented by a 'marriage license.' As much as I think homosexuality is perverse and wrong, I don't see a valid Constitutional basis for government exclusion of those unions from secular recognition.

To address your 'enabler' comment, I may indeed be an enabler of homosexuals, but it is in the same sense that I am an 'enabler' of Democrats and other socialists because I don't want government to intervene in determining what political parties can exist. I believe the proper way to cause Democrats to cease to exist is to vote them out of office everywhere they pop up - meaning, use public opinion, not the force of law to discriminate against them.

I would choose the same way to keep homosexuality out of the public sphere - by motivating popular opinion, not by force of law. If they exist, then under the Constitution, they deserve equal protection of the law.

Let me put it this way. In the list of windmills at which I think we should tilt, homosexual civil unions fall below heterosexual promiscuity in priority. And abiding by the Constitution as written is more important to me as a guide to government action than either.