Skip to comments.
Why We Are Losing Debate Over Same-Sex Marriage
Townhall.com ^
| March 29, 2013
| Mona Charen
Posted on 03/29/2013 12:09:41 PM PDT by Kaslin
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-87 next last
To: Kaslin
When the radical leftists were allowed to take over the government schools the die was cast.
21
posted on
03/29/2013 12:27:08 PM PDT
by
Iron Munro
(Welcome to Obama-Land - EVERYTHING NOT FORBIDDEN IS COMPULSORY)
To: Westbrook
Where did he apologize? I don’t see it in the linked article.
The headline is inaccurate as well. Carson doesn’t say he won’t be speaking at the commencement. He says if he is asked not to speak, he’ll respect the request.
Good ol’ NBC.
22
posted on
03/29/2013 12:28:38 PM PDT
by
Third Person
(Welcome to Gaymerica.)
To: Olog-hai
How come its always defeated when put to public vote in that caseNot any more. Same sex marriage was on the ballot in four states in 2012, and won in all four.
To: dfwgator
Because we have become a Post-Christian nation Much of "Christianity" is post-Christian.
24
posted on
03/29/2013 12:31:54 PM PDT
by
jtal
(Runnin' a World in Need with White Folks' Greed - since 1492)
To: American in Israel
You are absolutely right. This Mona Charen really gets on my nerves.
25
posted on
03/29/2013 12:32:30 PM PDT
by
kabumpo
(Kabumpo)
To: Kaslin
We’re not losing any “debate.” Unelected jurists are forcing same-sex marriage on us. This issue loses every time it comes before the voters, even in the “bluest” states.
26
posted on
03/29/2013 12:34:13 PM PDT
by
Fiji Hill
(Io Triumphe!)
To: Kaslin
27
posted on
03/29/2013 12:34:22 PM PDT
by
SkyDancer
(Live your life in such a way that the Westboro church will want to picket your funeral.)
To: Kaslin
Same-sex marriage is probably inevitable in America whatever the Supreme Court decides...what the SC decides will not be same-sex marriage - it will be same-sex business arrangement - gays can have all the visiting righte, inheritance rights, insurance rights that they want - they can be married by some former automobile salesman turned mayor in some marbled town hall whenever they want - all of which is about the extent of what the SC could grant them in their wildest dreams - and it will never be marriage in the tradional, spiritual, sacred sense that it has been for two thousand years and will be into the future in most churches.....
....and that's sad for most gays who think they will have won a great victory if the SC rules as they want, because for all their push to try to normalize and make themselves not quite so strange the people they know they are deep down inside, their efforts to be included in marriage as are breeders, as they so contemptuously refer to straights, can never really succeed - most chrushes are not going to abandon thousands of years of belief because they're called some names by the gay lobby......
To: Westbrook
You are correct - the Left never, ever apologizes for its own errors.
Many still don’t understand that we are in a war against those who intend to obliterate us.
29
posted on
03/29/2013 12:35:48 PM PDT
by
kabumpo
(Kabumpo)
To: EternalVigilance
“If the battle is being lost, and that is by no means certain, it is primarily because the Republican Party no longer represents what is right”
So?
What does that have to do with the abstract failure of conservatives to do little more than look like morons from the sidelines?
To: Wisconsinlady
They are never on the offense; only on the defense and the left has learned how to take advantage of that fact.
That pretty much sums up the problem with the GOP on a whole range of issues. Liz Cheney isn't the most conservative woman in the world but she's dead on target in saying pretty much the same thing.
31
posted on
03/29/2013 12:41:22 PM PDT
by
cripplecreek
(REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
To: Kaslin
Because it just isn’t that important to the majority of Americans, unlike the gun issue.
32
posted on
03/29/2013 12:41:55 PM PDT
by
stuartcr
("I have habits that are older than the people telling me they're bad for me.")
To: Kaslin
This was posted a day or two ago on FR and definitely presents reasonable DEBATE from someone who is gay.
Im gay, and I oppose gay marriage
http://www.lifesitenews.com | March 27, 2013 | Doug Mainwaring
March 27, 2013 (thePublicDiscourse.com) - In our sometimes misguided efforts to expand our freedom, selfish adults have systematically dismantled that which is most precious to children as they grow and develop. Thats why I am now speaking out against same-sex marriage.
By the way, I am gay.
A few days ago I testified against pending same-sex marriage legislation in Minnesotas Senate Judiciary and House Civil Law Committees.
The atmosphere at these events (Ive also testified elsewhere) seems tinged with unrealityalmost a carnival-like surrealism. Natural law, tradition, religion, intellectual curiosity, and free inquiry no longer play a role in deliberations. Same-sex marriage legislation is defended solely on grounds of moral relativism and emotions.
Pure sophistry is pitted against reason. Reason is losing.
Heres the problem: The national discussion of same-sex marriage treats the issue like a game of checkers, where opponents can quickly gain each others pieces without much forethought about the consequences. This unreflective view of the discussion has prevented any real debate.
In years past, defenders of marriage found it easy to win the battle on the checker board. Appeals to religion and tradition won hands down almost effortlessly. While same-sex marriage advocates argued for a more thoughtful consideration of the topic, they were mostly just bulldozed over.
The tide has turned. Same-sex marriage proponents now have all the kings on the board, and rule it. One only needs to consider media headlines from the last few weeks. We are bombarded with approvals of same-sex marriage. To the casual onlooker, not steeped in this issue, it would seem that conservatism has embraced same-sex marriage. Each day brings fresh news of Republican political elites, Fortune 500 companies, NFL members, and even Dirty Harry himself, Clint Eastwood, throwing their support behind genderless marriage.
The game we are actually playing is chess, not checkers. This sounds confusing, because chess and checkers are played on the exact same sixty-four square game board. Checkers is easy and its fast. Its one of the first games children learn how to play. Chess is hard, requiring thought about the intended and unintentional consequences of every single move that may or may not be made.
In developing their goals for policy and law, politicians often look no further than the next election cycle. Theyre concerned about votes. Supporting same-sex marriage now looks like a winner for them.
It also looks like a winner for media outlets, concerned about revenues and readership, and for large corporations, eager to polish their images and create goodwill. Few of these outlets are interested in playing chess because a quick win at checkers is more important to them.
The sense of urgency regarding same-sex marriage, now palpably frenetic, is in itself a sign of our national discussions devolution into nothing more than slogans and emotions.
Our nations individual state legislatures and courtsincluding the Supreme Court need to apply the brakes. Now.
As in chess, the unintended consequences deserve sound consideration.
Genderless marriage now enjoys an aura of equality and fairness, which suggests that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had same-sex marriages in mind as they penned their magnificent giant leap forward for humanity. While this situation is highly unlikely, those who selfishly seek additional rights for themselves have found their justification in the penumbra they now sense surrounding legitimate civil rights.
Same-sex marriage will not expand rights and freedoms in our nation. It will not redefine marriage. It will undefine it.
This isnt the first time our society has undefined marriage. No-fault divorce, instituted all across our country, sounded like a good idea at the time. Its unintended consequence was that it changed forever the definition of marriage from a permanent relationship between spouses to a temporary one. Sadly, children became collateral damage in the selfish pursuits of adults.
Same-sex marriage will do the same, depriving children of their right to either a mom or a dad. This is not a small deal. Children are being reduced to chattel-like sources of fulfillment. On one side, their family tree consists not of ancestors, but of a small army of anonymous surrogates, donors, and attorneys who pinch-hit for the absent gender in genderless marriages. Gays and lesbians demand that they have a right to have children to complete their sense of personal fulfillment, and in so doing, are trumping the right that children have to both a mother and a fathera right that same-sex marriage tramples over.
Same-sex marriage will undefine marriage and unravel it, and in so doing, it will undefine children. It will ultimately lead to undefining humanity. This is neither progressive nor conservative legislation. It is regressive legislation.
Nowhere on any marriage license application in any state are the applicants asked, Do you love each other? Yet this is the basis on which same-sex marriage proponents seek to change our laws. Is the state really in the business of celebrating our romantic lives?
The mantra I heard repeatedly in Minnesota was that marriage is about love, commitment, and responsibility. But these three things are not the states interests in marriage. Marriage, from the states perspective, is about kids. Period. Thats the reason the institution exists. We should tremble at and fear the notion of undoing it.
For a nation that has no trouble selfishly creating a seventeen-trillion-dollar (and growing) deficit it will soon hand off to its children and grandchildren, perhaps this is asking too much. But for the sake of all children and those yet to be born, we need to slow down and seriously consider the unintended consequences of undefining marriage. Otherwise, we risk treating our progeny as expendable pawns, sacrificed in the name of self-fulfillment. We can do better than that.
Doug Mainwaring is co-founder of the National Capital Tea Party Patriots. This article reprinted with permission from The Public Discourse.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/im-gay-and-i-oppose-gay-marriage
To: Kaslin; Alamo-Girl; xzins
Proponents of same-sex marriage appear to be asking for simple justice The operative word here is "appear." They are asking for simple justice as if any of these people have ever been denied the "right" to marry. (Which does not seem to me to imply any sense of a "political" right; for marriage has its basis in biological fact going back millennia and forward, from its root in malefemale pair bonding, which is a plain biological and anthropological fact).
The fact is, nobody prohibits gay people from marrying; they just choose not to: gays don't "marry" because the very definition of that word is offensive to them because it implicitly recognizes the marital relation as involving malefemale pairing and bonding (which goes back some 40 millennia or so, long before Christianity ever came on the scene), for the benefit of their progeny (which gays cannot directly have).
What gay activists really want is to change the definition of the word "marriage." But if we willy-nilly change the meaning of words just to make some people feel better about themselves, then what does this do to the ability of human beings to communicate meaningfully and truthfully? I mean, if the meaning of words is subject to change by political edict, then how can we say we are not living in a totalitarian system already, which specializes in "double-speak" as a major tool of social change?
In short, gay people won't marry because that would mean they'd have to stop being "gay." And they don't want to. But that doesn't mean they do not have a "right" to marry, if they wish.
BTW, I'm all for civil unions for gay people. But not "gay marriage" which is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms....
Thanks for the great post, Kaslin!
34
posted on
03/29/2013 12:43:16 PM PDT
by
betty boop
(We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
To: RobbyS
To: TexasFreeper2009
36
posted on
03/29/2013 12:43:47 PM PDT
by
stuartcr
("I have habits that are older than the people telling me they're bad for me.")
To: Third Person
37
posted on
03/29/2013 12:45:00 PM PDT
by
Westbrook
(Children do not divide your love, they multiply it.)
To: Kaslin
It is precisely the same problem with the abortion issue and many other moral issues, like divorce:
When we as Christians to the fundamental groundwork that we are supposed to do and truly win hearts and souls to our faith, problems like same-sex marriage, abortion, divorce and many issues will, to a large extent, repair themselves.
Winning these issues does not involve winning arguments or debates, it involves winning hearts, minds and souls to the gospel message.
38
posted on
03/29/2013 12:48:05 PM PDT
by
RatRipper
(Self-centeredness, greed, envy, deceit and lawless corruption has killed this once great nation.)
To: Kaslin
We are losing the debate because of public schools.
39
posted on
03/29/2013 12:48:47 PM PDT
by
Carry_Okie
(An economy is not a zero-sum game, but politics usually is.)
To: VanDeKoik
In the last election they weren’t “on the sidelines.” Most of them were supporting the father of “gay marriage” and homosexualized public schools in Massachusetts for president.
We would be further ahead if they were actually on the sidelines.
40
posted on
03/29/2013 12:49:10 PM PDT
by
EternalVigilance
(Legislate that down is up if you will, but take my advice, don't jump off cliffs anyway.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-87 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson