Posted on 08/02/2012 6:49:37 AM PDT by DallasBiff
And freedom, after all, is at the heart of the controversy over same-sex marriage. True individual freedom includes allowing consenting adults to marry the partners they choose, regardless of gender. To those for whom same-sex marriage is personally objectionable, their free choice is simple: Don’t enter into one. But don’t impede the freedom of others to do so. As long as Chick-fil-A operates within the boundaries of the law, municipalities and institutions should leave the decision about whether to eat at Chick-fil-A to individual consumers. If they do, Chick-fil-A is still likely to experience a net loss of business over time as a result of Mr. Cathy’s statements. This is because gay people are the constituency most viscerally, fundamentally and personally affected by the denial of the freedom to marry the consenting adult we choose. We are the ones with the highest personal stakes in sticking out the battle in the long run. And we will vote with our feet.
In the marketplace as in politics, those rare players who place individual freedom ahead of their own personal agendas will get my vote every time.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
But I like his logic when used with different terms: “To those for whom concealed-carry permits are personally objectionable, their free choice is simple: Don’t get such a permit”.
Right, as in this passage:
“True individual freedom includes allowing consenting adults to marry the partners they choose, regardless of gender. To those for whom same-sex marriage is personally objectionable, their free choice is simple: Don’t enter into one. But don’t impede the freedom of others to do so.”
As if same sex marriage doesn’t have far-reaching implications and ramifications for society, for children, for the future of the family. What if pedophiles were to say, “You don’t like pedophilia? Then don’t engage in it!” Really, people have to learn how to THINK.
Do these sexual deviants really think that the 1.7% of the U.S. population that is thus afflicted will amount to anything when Chick-Fil-A looks at its earnings? Just because the morally-blind msm tells you you are important doesn’t make it so.
The same argument is used for abortion: if you don’t like it, don’t get one.
So Willie Sutton could have argued, “If you don’t like my practice of robbing banks, you don’t have to emulate me — but don’t interfere with my personal career choices.”
To use a sports analogy: never give you opponent bulletin board material. This only (1) gets them mad, (2) gives them something to rally around as a team, and (3) makes them work harder.
The over-the-top response to Cathy’s statements is the political equivalent of bulletin board material.
I like the “vote with their feet”. Let the less than 1% vote with those or with any other parts of their anatomy.
But I sincerely wish “they” would just STFU and get out of our faces!
this argument is rubbish. With same-sex "marriage" you get the whole gay lifestyle shoved down your throat - PC training in schools, demands that your church, your club, your company, your organization serve such marriages, promotion of homosexuals on public media and airways, etc... With same-sex "marriage" it is most definitely all or nothing.
For those who feel the New York Times is a house organ of the Democrat party and don’t want to partake of it’s liberal propaganda, don’t buy it.
My argument to gay “marriage” is simple: ask the question “why 2?” The question to ask to gays who want to “marry” is also simple: “You propose the definition of marriage to be a legal contract between 2:n people of either/any gender?”
We can provide a rationale for Marriage between a man and a woman: it is how progeny are created, progeny create families, families with the parents create social stability, social stability is desirable and is thus recognized and supported by governments.
We have thousands of years of background supporting this thesis and structure.
When the (inevitable) response is “but people get divorced (etc.),” the answer is “people may or may not AVAIL THEMSELVES of the structure, but this is the rationale for the structure.”
We are left with the proposed definition I started with (2-n people, any sex). If the other person accepts the definition, we are left with “OK. marriage doesn’t exist at all then.”
It is irrefutable.
When a significant percentage of the population accepts decadence as the norm, you have a nation in clear decline. If Obama wins in November, then it will be clear that the tipping point has been passed.
In order to do that, you first have to redefine marriage. I have still heard no compelling arguments for doing so. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada.
by the denial of the freedom to marry the consenting adult we choose by the denial of the freedom to marry the consenting adult we choose.
Gays have the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex as everybody else does, so the 'right' is equal.
Using their logic and the current laws, if I had a brother and wanted to marry him and he consented, we should be able to become man and wife.
-----
I know...it's an inherently disgusting thought, but you'd be amazed how presenting THAT little scenario to them grosses THEM out!
LOL!
Sadly, too difficult these days, thankfully, the premium cable package offers relief from such hardships.
We won't buy it but we do pay for it. Every government funded: library, office, school, etc. is subscribed.
...to ask them if they know what a non-sequitur is. I then give them an example: If A equals B, and B equals C, then X equals Y. Another such example is: if 50% of marriages end in divorce, then we should redefine marriage. I always hammer them on this whole '50%' argument. I always press them to explain it, and I never let them slide around it. Then, I use it to set the meme that their logic is flawed.
I am pretty sure the univerality of that ended back in the nineties. Certainly it has not been true any more for a long time in the prairie states.
Since marriage is only between a man and a woman, there's a bit of a non starter there. That said, let's be more accurate here... By legalizing gay shacking up as being equivalent to marriage, it puts the power of the law behind the union and forces others to recognize it, to act with it. If it was just some title, that would be one thing - I could live with disagreeing over it. But to force others to treat them differently because of it, that is compelled action. And that removes my freedom.
Shack up with whomever you want - you do not need my approval or consent. But declare that you are invading marriage and then forcing me to accept it? It isn't going to happen. And to support this freedom, the law will fine and punish those who similarly refuse. Someone walks into a photography studio and says 'I want you to film my gay marriage', you had best drop everything and take this commission, even if they decide they want heavy discounts, lest they turn around and claim that you refused their business because it was a gay marriage. It is not equal rights, it is special rights they claim, superseding any other. You have a right to refuse business, except if someone's gay, then you're committing a crime...
And there's the kernel of why I absolutely object to the corruption of marriage - equality was never the goal. The goal was to use the full force of the government to convert everyone to accept and sanctify their lifestyle. To remove the freedom of choice from everyone else. I refuse.
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.