Posted on 07/02/2013 6:48:44 PM PDT by ReformationFan
‘I’m Gay and I Oppose Same-Sex Marriage” is the title of an article Doug Mainwaring wrote earlier this year. A tea-party activist in Maryland, he found out the hard way — through the eyes of his kids — that children really do flourish with both a mother and a father active in their daily lives. “To be fully formed, children need to be free to generously receive from and express affection to parents of both genders. Genderless marriages deny this fullness,” he wrote. Mainwaring talks with National Review Online’s Kathryn Jean Lopez about last week’s Supreme Court decisions and the future for marriage.
KATHRYN JEAN LOPEZ: Did the debate about gay marriage end last week?
DOUG MAINWARING: The debate about marriage absolutely did not end last week. Not even close. In many ways, I feel like the national debate hasn’t even begun to occur. Eric Teetsel got it right in his recent article, “On Winning the Marriage Debate.” Popular support has been gained not through the triumph of ideas, but through what amounts to nothing more than a beauty pageant. We are no longer a nation of ideas. Policies are products; people are brands. We pay no attention to intellectual boxing matches such as those between Lincoln and Douglas, or Hayek and Keynes. Instead we have beauty pageants in which contestants primp and pose for the affections of the audience voting from home. The tide has turned in support for genderless marriage via slogans and celebrities. The current window of opportunity for the advancement of same-sex marriage is based on a fragile narrative and an aura of acceptance, both of which could evaporate very quickly if real, substantial debate were to be had in the public arena.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Hell, what’s species got to do with it?
Gay tea party activist? There’s something you don’t see everyday.
Maybe he’s concerned about taxes, but if he’s making enough money to care about that, you’d think he’d be pushing for homo marriage so he can get the tax break.
infiltration, they use our titles and banners to co-opt our message/ like how the leftist Obamite running Facebook can start a PAC/group that actually overtly pretends to be conservative
Surprise, there are black tea party activists, too!
Sure, but you see them all the time. Just not on the mainstream media coverage, of course.
That was a good article.
but a gay man or woman can be small gov and still support the agenda— tea party primarily a economic concern not so much with social agenda ie same sex marriage or abortion although most in tea party would be conservative on those issues. It’s funny because a l lot of older gay people I know weren’t concerned in the least about marriage— that was a straight person’s thing. But pressure has been put on everyone to conform— son God forbid there should be any honest debate. In and of itself I don’t think two gays or lesbians getting legally marriage ie the state is harming any straight couple—what is being harmed is that the traditional conservative view is being accorded less popularity not only with the media or academia who were always quite radically left to begin with-— but with the average joe or jane. On the other hand when it comes to kids—of course it’s better that they have a MOMMY (a real woman) and a DADDY (a real man). Of course you can throw in—well what if those kids had to spend the rest of their lives in an orphanage—then of course I would say it’s better that they would be better in a home with a gay couple as opposed to an orphanage. But in general I go toward the traditional family unit. My dad as good as he was couldn’t give me the same thing as my mom and vice versa.
Wasn’t Teilhard reprimanded or condemned for placing the love between two people in a marriage ahead of procreation? Existence precedes essence, after all . . . There might be such a thing as taking “natural law” to a place where it ought not to go. Rob’t P. George your phone is ringing.
Yes, I understand gays can have economic concerns and that’s the TP’s primary focus. You just don’t see them involved in that too much. Especially not since the early days, as it has become focused on a lot more than taxes and smaller government.
As for gay marriage harming straight couples, well gay marriage harms the whole society. Gay couples, straight couples, single people, they are all harmed by degeneration of our cultural institutions and normalization of perversions. We’re all in the same boat, it is taking on water, and nobody has a life raft.
But that's the entire point! If government got out of the business of treating married and single people differently, then the entire gay marriage debate goes away in an instant!! Nothing keeps them from having parties or making lifetime commitments in front of a respected figure... the only things the Gay lobby has to fight for is equal recognition as married folk... but if married people were not treated differently from single people, there would be nothing left to "struggle for". Taxes, insurance, DNR declarations, and some probate rules are really the only things standing in the way, and none of those would be difficult to change to allow all citizens to be treated the same or to have the Freedom to declare whomever they wish to be their heirs/decision-makers/insureds (as long as insurance companies could also have the Freedom to charge appropriately, by actuarial tables, and not by PC decree).
Very good and very true.
why are female homosexuals called “lesbian” and male “gay”?
they should eliminate the gender bias themselves and just say “homosexual” as a gender neutral term.
(/s)
Bump.....
“If government got out of the business of treating married and single people differently, then the entire gay marriage debate goes away in an instant!!”
If you believe that, then I’m afraid you’ve underestimated our opposition. Nothing will satisfy them short of total destruction of traditional Western culture, and all of their pleas for equality are simply a ruse to lure fair minded people into supporting their agenda.
Leave off the sarc tag, it’s a legitimate point. One of the Alinsky rules, I believe, is “make the enemy live up to their own rules”, to the point of absurdity, of course.
There is something grimly amusing about the secular left with its loudly declared devotion to Darwin deciding that a social institution that ensures young humans are nurtured by both of the humans with whom the maximally share genotype (leaving aside an identical twin who would hardly be able to provide much nurture) should be cast aside.
The basis of marriage lies in biology, not in a moral tradition: Christ Himself pointed to biology “male and female He created them” in establishing a norm for marriage against the moral traditions of the surrounding society — interestingly obliquely pointing to Roman-style monogamy, rather than Jewish polygamy as the norm (Jews only dropped polygamy in the medieval era).
for later
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.