A friend posted the image below on her Facebook account with a little mocking note at the hysteria of some who oppose gay marriage. You'll need to click on it to read it, but suffice it to say it's a breathless science fiction story outlining the dreadful future that will be ours if we legalize gay marriage.
The funny thing is, it's a perfect synopsis of the way I see the pro-gay marriage crowd. For the life of me, I can't think just what the big deal is. What is the injustice that we're correcting by changing a definition that goes back for thousands of years? As far as I can tell, whatever inconveniences gay couples face, they're utterly washed away by the benefits of being two childless adults. I've heard some stories about partners not being able to visit each other in hospitals or inherit things, but how many people does this really effect? What percentage of the population is at play here and how does it compare to, say, the afflictions of the rarer types of cancer or very localized bank failures?
I've also heard the justifications based on "equality." At the most basic level, if hetero- and homo- are equal, then everything is equal. The scoreboard reads 6,840,507,003* to 0. Everyone on the planet came from hetero relationships. If that isn't enough to differentiate something, then there is no such thing as differentiation. The two things simply are not equal.
So what's the real substance behind the push for gay marriage?
* - Actually it's much more lopsided than that as the scoreboard should record every human ever in the whole of history.
KT, we just have to find the portal back to the real world. We're living in an alternate universe right now, where everything is upside down, laws mean nothing, porn stars are lauded, Moms are derided, cops are the bad guys, we need government to tell us what to eat, and we have no idea how mankind survived over the centuries.
It really is surreal.
Hey, you mean that if we allow gay marriage, then we'll have a self-sustaining moon colony by 2065? And that it will be cheap enough to get to that grumpy old men can afford to stomp off to it in a huff without raising a few million dollars first? Cool! Let's go!
(at the rate things are actually going, I'd be surprised if we have a moon colony that's much more than a transplanted antarctic station anytime before around 2100)
IMHO, the end-game in the push for gay marriage is to control what Christians can say.
Well, if I may, let me flip it around and ask you a question. Let's say for the sake of argument that gay marriage is made perfectly legal throughout the land. Let's also say that there's a legally married homosexual couple living next door to you. In this scenario, who, if anyone, is being inconvenienced? Marginalized? Victimized? Discriminated against?
Because I've listened to what a lot of the opponents of gay marriage have to say, and I have to say, I don't find any of their arguments even remotely convincing.
It is the tax payers who are victimized by gay marriage. Government taxes are reduced for those who are married filing jointly in most instances.
Further, benefits will be pillaged by members of the military who claim to be married for the free housing.
If you want to know why the idea of gay marriage is being pushed, follow the money.
John, we've heard that argument before with treating all kinds of sexual relationships as equal, only to find out that they weren't. On the plus side, we're a lot less judgmental. On the minus side, our prison population is enormous.
At what point in time do the proponents of equivalency have to produce better results?
Ivyan, you've hit my biggest fear right on the head. How long will it be before suggesting that gay marriage isn't equal to everything else is considered a hate crime? Fear of personal reactions is already what keeps me from replying to my Facebook friend.
Rose, I wonder if Europe will lead us back to reality. Poverty has a way of clarifying things.
Well, a few points to respond to. How about we itemize this:
1. "The end-game in the push for gay marriage is to control what Christians can say." Actually, it's about allowing two consenting adults to marry the persons they love, with the same legal protections that other consenting adults already enjoy.
2. "Government taxes are reduced for those who are married filing jointly in most instances." The same would be true for heterosexual couples who decide to marry solely for tax benefits. If your issue truly is with those who receive ill-gotten tax benefits, then I would think you'd be more interested in instituting some kind of lie detector test for all marriages, instead of just preventing homosexual ones.
3. "On the minus side, our prison population is enormous." I'm not exactly sure what this has to do with the state allowing consenting homosexual adults the right to get married. Could you explain?
Here's why no one need worry about gay "marriage": homosexuals are the ultimate evolutionary dead end. Their numbers are limited by their very inability to breed in meaningful numbers. We might as well worry about being damaged by albinos, or hemophiliacs.
It astonishes me that the Left, a group that has all but deified Darwin, fails to see this.
1. "We might as well worry about being damaged by albinos, or hemophiliacs." You are aware, I'm sure, that it is still possible for non-albino parent to have an albino child, same as with hemophilia, and with homosexuality? Also, in what way to you imagine that homosexuals could 'damage' you? I'm not sure what you mean there.
Mr Travolta: Yes, it is possible. Possible, but unlikely. And, as gay-only relationships eclipse the old gay/straight closet marriages, the probability of homosexuals passing on their genes approaches even closer to zero.
Which is why no one need worry.
"Which is why no one need worry."
If we need not worry, then why go to all the effort to prevent two consenting adults from marrying the person they choose? Live and let live, right?
"All the effort"? What effort? I have expended no effort whatsoever.
Oh, wait! I see. You've mistaken me for someone who gives a **** about gay "issues".
Sorry. Try next door.
So you're fine with the idea of legalizing gay marriage?
What worries me: In states where gay marriage is legal, wedding vendors have been sued for refusing to work gay weddings. These are people of faith being persecuted for doing as their conscience dictates. Even if the suit gets thrown out, the vendor is out legal fees. These suits are an attempt to censor the wedding vendors.
Travolta: I don't want to spend all day on this, but I will take the time to teach you something...
Marriage, historically, was not a legal issue. Marriage was a religious and covenantal - i.e., kinship - matter. It only became a legal issue by accident and because the State needed a basis for settling estate and inheritance - i.e., kinship - claims. Small-o orthodox Christians recognize marriage as a sacrament that is bestowed by the bride and groom on each other. The presence of a priest or public official is not required. Otherwise, poor people who lived in remote areas in, say, the 12th Century could never have been married.
In its original, religious, and historical sense, homosexuals can't be married. It's not a matter of "fairness". It's a matter of biology, kinship, and revealed theology. It may sound cool to say "Bobby has two Mommies" but, biologically, it will never be true. Can't happen. You know it, I know it. Gotta be a wiggler there somewhere. No one ever said gravity was "fair", either. It just is what it is.
In the revealed Truth, religious context, the secular law doesn't matter, either (just as secular law cannot change who is eligible to take Communion or who was eligible to enter the Holy of Holies in Solomon's Temple). In fact, secular law isn't even involved. We still see the remnants of that today in the context of "common-law marriage", which is established solely by habit and appearance. You might call it "walks like a duck" marriage.
As a matter of contract law, which encapsulates the current view of "marriage", I would be hard pressed to think of a contract voluntarily entered into by consenting adults that would bother me... excepting those obvious cases already prohibited because the US law does not allow a person to contractually surrender their Constitutional rights, no matter whether it is voluntary.
So no, in short and outside theological/historical context, it is not a matter that interests me. If all 50 states passed gay "marriage" laws today, we would all wake up tomorrow and, for the vast, vast majority of us, nothing of any direct relevance to our lives would have changed.
So, in summary, homosexuals can never be married in a religious/historical sense, but if they want to be sign a contract that says they are "married", or the reincarnation of Humphrey Bogart, or descended from the sentient gasbags of Zeta Prime, that's fine with me. Trust me, I have more important things to spend my "effort" on. Like making sure my taxes don't go up.
As I say, try next door.
Jedi Master Ivyan:
This is the only case I've found where a wedding vendor (a photographer) was sued for refusing to take on a job for a gay couple:
Key points: (1) This happened in New Mexico four years ago. New Mexico does *not* have any provisions for gay marriage or civil unions. So such suits can happen *already*, even without gay marriage being legal. (2) If it has happened again since 2008, I haven't seen any notice of it. If there was much grounds to your fear, it should already be happening regularly.
If you think that lawsuits and laws over supporting gay marriage aren't coming, you are naive. It's a very short step from where we are to hate crime legislation that makes publicly disagreeing with gay marriage a crime. It's already here, de facto. Among my friends who oppose it, nearly all of us censor ourselves on venues like Facebook while the pro-gay marriage people can post whatever they want. Dig this post, for example. I would never pose this question on Facebook to my pro-gay marriage friends.
John T, you still need to show some scoreboard somewhere that indicates in even the smallest sense that the move towards moral equivalence has been beneficial in some way. I've spent a good portion of my free time as an adult working with boys from single parent homes become successful. It's unbelievably difficult and you can only do one or two at a time. At no point do I wish that their parents had been told in yet one more way that the traditional family was just one of many valid lifestyle choices.
The proposition that gay marriage is equivalent to hetero marriage simply isn't true. Not at the biological level, not at the societal level, not at any level.
It's not about the gay couple, it's about the collateral damage done to society when you practice moral equivalence. People aren't rational, they're rationalizing and if you give them yet one more excuse to do something stupid that has short-term benefits, many of them will do it.
"Among my friends who oppose it, nearly all of us censor ourselves on venues like Facebook while the pro-gay marriage people can post whatever they want."
Whatever for? What are they going to do to you on Facebook if you speak your mind?
I suppose they could argue with you and call you names, but so what? Isn't that what Facebook is *for*?
Tim, you should have seen some of the name calling that was done following the North Carolina election. Anyone who disagrees is a knuckle-dragging, stump-toothed redneck bigot. Since these are also our family friends, we don't want to tick them off.
It turns out that we knuckle-dragging, stump-toothed redneck bigots can practice tolerance just fine. The open-minded types, not so much.
Hey, I think it's awesome that you help out disadvantaged kids, seriously. But I can't help but wonder what percentage of these kids must come from broken homes full of addiction, abuse, and neglect. I'm guessing the number must be pretty high. I also wonder what percentage of these kids are broken solely because of the fact that they were raised by two homosexuals.
On the other hand, we can see example after example of gay kids and teens being driven to the point of suicide, because they're surrounded by a society that demonizes homosexuals at every turn. Doesn't that give you pause at all?
John, I'm sorry I don't have time to do your comment justice, but I'll just say this.
Gays committing suicide are dwarfed by boys from single parent homes in prison. It's not even close. It's different by factors of 10,000 or more. The moral equivalence crowd has blood on its hands, make no mistake.
The destruction of the family is a direct result of that kind of thinking. Gay marriage solves nothing of any consequence and is just one more step down the road of moral equivalence.
Again, it's not about the gays. It's about the rest of us. One of my project boys (for lack of a better term) is in prison right now for attempted murder. It's not a joke. It's all around you and going farther down the road of everything-is-cool-don't-be-judgmental is either deliberate ignorance or simple evil.
Before you jump up and down about gays getting married, spend a year working with one of these boys and immerse yourself in the statistics. Get an idea of the avalanche of social pathologies moral equivalence has unleashed on us all. Until then, you don't know what you're talking about.
Post a Comment