Posted on 11/06/2005 7:12:22 PM PST by Lorianne
Gay marriage is rapidly becoming our national tar baby – something that you cannot touch without getting tar all over you. Once you touch the tar baby, you can never quite get rid of it again.
Frankly, the gay-marriage tar baby perplexes me. I do not understand it. All I know is that I want to keep my distance from it.
The source of my confusion is this. For 18 years, I have shared my life with a member of my own sex, and I have been entirely satisfied with our domestic arrangements. Never once did it occur to me that there was something missing from our lives or that we were the oppressed victims of the heterosexual majority. Never once did I think our lives would be more complete, or more honorable, or more worthy, if only we had been able to get married.
My thought was not that marriage should be only between a man and a woman but, simply and matter-of-factly, that marriage was and had always been between a man and a woman. Marriage as an institution was theirs; it wasn't ours.
(Excerpt) Read more at dallasnews.com ...
My major problem with homosexualists wanting to "change" marriage is the same problem I have with anyone who wants to "change" an institution simply to fit their personal situation.
To me it's like this:
I'm not a doctor, having never been to medical school or otherwise been qualified.
I go down to the medical licensing place and demand a license to practice medicine.
The clerk says to me, "But you're not a doctor."
I say, "Well, what's that got to do with it? You give licenses to other people."
"Yes, but they're doctors. You're not eligible for a medical license."
"But that's not fair! I should have the same rights as the people who went to medical school! Just because I'm not a doctor doesn't mean I should be denied a license! You need to change the eligibility requirements so that I can get a license the same way people who have been to medical school can get a license!"
To be eligible for a marriage license (until recently), you had to be (1) a man marrying a woman, or (2) a woman marrying a man.
If you were not qualified, by intending to marry a person of the opposite sex, you simply weren't eligible for "marriage" because marriage is between a man and a woman.
But now gays have come along and said "Well, change the eligibility requirements so I can get a license anyway."
My major problem with homosexualists wanting to "change" marriage is the same problem I have with anyone who wants to "change" an institution simply to fit their personal situation.
To me it's like this:
I'm not a doctor, having never been to medical school or otherwise been qualified.
I go down to the medical licensing place and demand a license to practice medicine.
The clerk says to me, "But you're not a doctor."
I say, "Well, what's that got to do with it? You give licenses to other people."
"Yes, but they're doctors. You're not eligible for a medical license."
"But that's not fair! I should have the same rights as the people who went to medical school! Just because I'm not a doctor doesn't mean I should be denied a license! You need to change the eligibility requirements so that I can get a license the same way people who have been to medical school can get a license!"
To be eligible for a marriage license (until recently), you had to be (1) a man marrying a woman, or (2) a woman marrying a man.
If you were not qualified, by intending to marry a person of the opposite sex, you simply weren't eligible for "marriage" because marriage is between a man and a woman.
But now gays have come along and said "Well, change the eligibility requirements so I can get a license anyway."
Those "rights" should never be equal because a homosexual relationship is inherently insufficient to contribute to the perpetuation of the very society that has created the ability for them to do what they do in peace.
And all the legal recognition in the world won't fill the hole in self-approval that led to such extreme efforts to get societal approval in the first place.
Some will say the lack of self-approval comes from internalizing society's "bad" message about homosexuality. Nonsense. Mature people who are truly convinced their conduct is morally right need no approval at all from others. We all have experienced this, when we have felt peace about a course of conduct even in the face of great opposition.
If the lack of self-approval comes from an internal intuition that ultimately there is something morally wrong or destructive or unnatural or negative about one's chosen course of conduct, societal approval of that conduct actually could make the inner confict worse.
Homosexual Agenda Ping.
I guess it's time to trot out my list of quotes by "gay" spokespeeples explaining exactly why "gay" marriage is a goal. Hint: It's not because they want to emulate a "Father Knows Best" type of family.
An excerpt from: In Their Own Words: The Homosexual Agenda:
"Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile, who writes periodically for The New York Times, summarizes the agenda in OUT magazine (Dec/Jan 1994):
"A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes, but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution... The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake --and one that would perhaps benefit all of society--is to transform the notion of family entirely."
"Its the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statues, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into the public schools and in short to usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us."
Chris Crain, the editor of the Washington Blade has stated that all homosexual activists should fight for the legalization of same-sex marriage as a way of gaining passage of federal anti-discrimination laws that will provide homosexuals with federal protection for their chosen lifestyle.
Crain writes: "...any leader of any gay rights organization who is not prepared to throw the bulk of their efforts right now into the fight for marriage is squandering resources and doesn't deserve the position." (Washington Blade, August, 2003).
Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual activist writing in his book, Virtually Normal, says that once same-sex marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will have to develop a greater "understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman."
He notes: "The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness." (Sullivan, Virtually Normal, pp. 202-203)
Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor and homosexual activist has said: "Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. . Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family; and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. . We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society's view of reality." (partially quoted in "Beyond Gay Marriage," Stanley Kurtz, The Weekly Standard, August 4, 2003)
Evan Wolfson has stated: "Isn't having the law pretend that there is only one family model that works (let alone exists) a lie? . marriage is not just about procreation-indeed is not necessarily about procreation at all. "
(quoted in "What Marriage Is For," by Maggie Gallagher, The Weekly Standard, August 11, 2003)
Mitchel Raphael, editor of the Canadian homosexual magazine Fab, says:
"Ambiguity is a good word for the feeling among gays about marriage. I'd be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of 'till death do us part' and monogamy forever. We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play."
(quoted in "Now Free To Marry, Canada's Gays Say, 'Do I?'" by Clifford Krauss, The New York Times, August 31, 2003)
1972 Gay Rights Platform Demands: "Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit."
[Also among the demands was the elimination of all age of consent laws.]
Freepmail me AND DirtyHarryY2K if you want on/off this pinglist.
I like your analogy, so true.
Bravo, Mr. Harris. Thank you.
Great post Lorianne.
I believe that both Tammy Bruce and even Camille Paglia, IIRC, both agree with Mr. Harris.
They just don't get much press on this subject.
Read my comment above.
What rights are those? I am asking sincerely.
Neither is as succinct, and neither understands the heart as well as this author. He also is the best writer. of the three.
Men do it better.
"I want rights with my same-sex life partner equal to that of a heterosexual spouse."
What rights do you not have today?
I agree with you regarding Harris.
This article is articulates the conflict breathtakingly well. He has managed to put into words things I have thought but been unable to express. Miraculously, he does it from the alternate point of view.
I bet this guy is great to work for. Mostly because he sees people who are different from himself, not as enemies, but as people. That is a tremendous skill, especially when you are likely to have experienced some degree of ridicule at one point or another.
Now, as to your men do it better comment...In this case, you appear to be correct. LOL.
Bookmarked
Read the quotes I posted above by noted "gay" spokespersonages about the reasons for promoting same sex marriage.
It's not money (although individuals may have that motivation as well), it's power, and the desire to change society.
Here's this guy's problem: He's perfectly comfortable with his lifestyle and doesn't feel a psychological need to have someone else validate it. So he misses the point of gay marriage.
Then it really should be called "lesbian marriage", not "gay marriage". If the media would make this correction, you would soon see an entirely different treatment of the subject by persons of all persuasions. It would be rather like the Equal Rights Amendment, which went nowhere.
Kindly explain the responsibilities you are also willing to assume in exchange for the rights you claim, and demonstrate that they are universally assumed to be applicable by the majority of same-sex aspirants to marriage.
And in their opinion, and evidently yours, the only may to make it formal is to hijack a label used for millenia to mean something totally and permanently impossible between two people of the same sex?
Why is that particular word so essential to the perverts? Might it be the desire to destroy the normal as a means of lowering the standard?
You've got it. It's just not marriage.
Deal with it.
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.