GAY MARRIAGE (Should Heterosexuality and Homosexuality be on Equal Moral Footing?)

Hmmm. Didn't Sullivan write for National Review? Oh well.

Homosexual marriage is wrong as well as being an oxymoron. That said, the way heterosexuals have treated the institution of marriage is also wrong and the homosexual marriage fiasco is but the latest in a series of attacks against marriage and the family. The left has long recognized that denigrating the institution of marriage and its religious significance would be an important step towards their brave new socialist world.
Culturally, we also need to stand tougher against shacking up, divorce and adultery.
A constitutional amendment may be ham fisted, yet I wonder: conservatives out of their love for smaller government tend to refrain from taking that route. However, liberals do not hesitate to go that route because they enjoy so much success with it. Perhaps the big spanking is long overdue. Since that is all they seem to understand, maybe conservatives should just go for it. Then we can see how inclined they'll be to back us into a wall with their pathetic socio-political cultural agenda.

I'm sure we'll be treated to a lot of primetime spectacles on TV like Designing Women during the Clarence Thomas nomination.

"Homosexuality" is just a passing fad. If we really put our mind to it, we could eliminate it.

I'm sure that's what they said in the days of Leviticus. Additionally, back then, and in many times and places since, there have been efforts to get rid of homosexuality that were far more Draconian than anything any one of us would want to see in American society.

Keep talking like that to folks in the mushy middle, and you'll help make up their minds on this issue, for sure.

They are not activists nor do they seek to be represented by others. They just want to live their lives.

As I said before, most of the points in the article are refutable, and it will be the media depiction of everyday people like the ones you mention that will try to refute the notion that this is a radical change. Believe me, MSNBC is not going to stick a microphone in the face of a float rider at a gay pride parade for an opinion on gay marriage.

I oppose changing the constitution because people want to keep homosexuals in their place, whereever that is.

That is the crux of the similarity between the gay rights movement and the civil rights movement of years past. Even if someone insists that there is a difference between homosexual behavior and genetically-determined racial characteristics, there is still a cultural "us-them" that operates in both spheres, and this can be made to look like a collective "us" keeping "them" in their place. Expect the media to find a way to champion "them".

Most polls show that opposition to this is a religious issue.

I agree, but there is a substantial "ick" factor to consider. Ironically, it looks like the religious right is the ones trying to focus the minds of the mushy middle on the "ick" things, whereas the media, in defense of the gays, is trying to focus on the "family" things. The interesting thing about the article at the head of this thread is that it avoids both religion and ick, and tries to appeal to the middle on the issue of the natural resistance to change the status quo. That's the only way gay marriage has any chance of being slowed down. Whichever side looks the most radical is the one that's going to lose.

It is an issue of legal standing and access to government liscensing.

I agree, and right now, the gay marriage proponents are staying on message with that point. If the anti side can find a compelling message that does not turn off the people who are not normally inclined to be receptive to it, then there will be a real debate on the issue. If not, then there will be a societal change, and a lot of name-calling going on, heat and fury, signifying nothing.

Culturally, we also need to stand tougher against shacking up, divorce and adultery.

There's one way to do this, and it would be consistent with steps that have already been taken.

The answer: covenant marriage.

Covenant marriage is already the law of the land in three states. It goes back to having grounds for divorce, so a woman cannot just simply deprive a man of his house and kids on a mere whim, and calls for allowing marital property settlements to be influenced by marital misconduct.

Why not have covenant marriage for the people who want to marry for the purpose of raising families, and regular marriage for everyone else, including gays? It might be possible to benefit covenant marriages in some ways, most states have an income tax, and perhaps a larger standard deduction could be given for covenant marriages.

I'm still not sure what we could do about the shacking up, though.

I don't think you can mention gay marriage without half the population feeling the ick factor.

You could have said the same thing about integrated housing not too terribly long ago. There are still people in this country who feel an ick factor about living next door to people whose cultures are markedly different from their own. I will put myself in the latter category about the more extreme behaviors of illegal immigrants. I'd rather have a gay couple next door, who keeps the grass mowed, and the yard cheery!

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.