Posted on 07/11/2006 5:57:58 AM PDT by blitzgig
This is the nub of the issue. If gay marriage is allowed, then family law must be unisex. Anyone who believes that children do better with a mother and a father, generally speaking, will be suspect of a hate crime. School curricula from kindergarten through post-grad research will be overhauled -- so you won't have people doing research in support of traditional families, either.
Let's not kid ourselves. This fight is not about civil rights. It is about power. The secularists want to dictate our laws, destroy the family and traditional institutions and thus achieve control.
As a single man who doesn't belive in God, I have to say you've nailed it here. Other atheists I know of get positively apopleptic when religion is brought up; I am usually the one who defends religion, and you wouldn't believe the utter visiousness that pours from these libs. When I point out their bigotry, they get even freakier.
The thing some people don't understand, though, is that there isn't (from what I've seen) a desire to "destroy" marriage from many secularists as much as a complete lack of caring about it. They basically think all institutions are stupid and will shrivel up on their own, and this is only a matter of "equal rights". They seem to think that SOMETHING is to blame for the erosion of morality and ethics in this country, but all they can do is pull out that old fossil "Well, the nuclear family isn't like Leave It to Beaver, you know!" like that's some major revelation.
I think mostly they don't think about some master plan, they just work out their personal anger toward their parents, present or missing, in their politics. The end result is the same, but I don't think they're part of a conspiracy to end marriage.
As others have pointed out, many liberals see "gay" and "straight" behavior as hard-wired and genetic, but fail to see any meaningful genetic differences between men and women . . .
I'm still having dry heaves.
I must agree about visitation. My mother is/was an RN working on a rehab floor that had AIDS patients -- young male speed addicts mostly. The visitors recieved by these men would show up as (dressed as)women and leave as men!
When I refer to a desire to destroy the family, I'm speaking only of a small number of theorists and activists who clearly have an agenda. As you point out, the majority is just being reactive.
WOW ! Lesbians have discovered how to procreate? Details at Ten!
I agree, that argument is ridiculous. A child being raped and murdered by a homosexual in California doesn't affect me either by that line of reasoning. Ditto someone marrying their dog or having sexual congress with barnyard animals. Liberals have no concept of the link between tradition and subsequent generations concerning the social contract. Apparently libs feel that if it is physically possible to do something, unnatural or not, then one should be allowed to do it.
Understood. People have always wanted to have a say in shaping the kind of society they want to live in. But with the left it's always "if you don't want an abortion don't have one" or "if you don't like same-sex marriage don't marry the same sex." were the pro-slavery people "pro-choice?" "If you don't like slavery don't own one."
Try telling a liberal "if you don't like the Iraq war don't fight in it."
It is a lazy argument - actually no argument at all.
I choose Taylor because she is everything this very important court (New York, after all) did not take into account in upholding its touchingly Victorian version of marriage. The majority decision, written by Judge Robert S. Smith, more or less said that marriage has traditionally been between opposite sexes -- and, until the legislature decides differently, it should stay that way. Reading the decision induces vertigo from page after page of circular reasoning.
The preface "I choose Taylor" begins the authors surreal odyssey -a description of what premises the leftist socialist village run by big government that he whines should be imposed upon all. An absurd and self-destructive fantasy that would be better prefaced by what the choice actually is, delusion, and what the choice would accomplish, destruction.
The author can take his death wish fantasy trip all by himself without social acceptance or social funding... I suggest he begin by "adopting" a homosexual couple and funding the homosexual sex premised "benefits" society will not fund...
He never met my ex-wife.
"I want to have babies!"
"But you're a man. You can't have babies!"
"Well, I should have the right to have babies!"
"That's his right as a man..."
"Or woman..."
"What's the point?"
"What?"
"What's the point of his having the right to have children if he can't have children?"
"Don't oppress me!"
Monty Python was ahead of its time.
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.