thats just typical the bigotry argument and if you dont agree with something like gay marriage then your labelled a bigot and why cant people understand not everyone agrees that gay or marrying as gay is normal as it is not what god has intended in his grand design!
Gay Marriage
Posted by arminius!
I have been asked what I think about the Massachusetts court ruling requiring same-sex marriage. I've resisted responding, because this is an issue where all my liberal/conservative/libertarian leanings collide. So, my position is muddled, to say the least.
Many of my last remaining liberal beliefs revolve around feminism (though, not the feminist movement) and gay rights (though, not the gay rights movement). I do not think that gay marriage represents a threat to straight marriage. I don't think being gay is a choice, so I don't think making the lives of gay people easier or more attractive will convert a single straight person. I didn't choose to be straight, and therefore don't have any reason to believe that gay people chose to be gay. I don't buy into the whole idea that a charismatic teacher or other leader can recruit you to be gay--in college, I had some of the greatest teachers on earth, whom I would have followed to my death, but not a one of them could have convinced me that it would be really cool to put a c*** in my mouth. So, from the "moral hell-in-a handbasket" side of things, wherein we are all slouching toward Gommorrah and all that, I am on the side of same-sex marriage, because I don't think that same-sex marriage in and of itself is leading down that path.
On the libertarian side, I am for as least intrusive government as possible. Once government has decided to stick it's nose into something and grant or deny it (and there is ample justification for that in the case of marriage, because it emcompasses contracts and property inheritance), then that something should be granted to the broadest spectum of the citizenry that would be applicable. If the state governs marriage between a man and a woman to ensure that contractual obligations and property inheritance are maintained in a just and non-chaotic fashion, then those reasons are sufficient justification to extend those benefits to same-sex relationships. The state is not mandating that religious groups recognize same-sex marriages, only that the state does; this is in essence the state witnessing a contract between two parties. I have no problem with that -- provided that is where we stay -- how soon till a religion's refusing to sanction a gay marriage becomes a hate crime? -- unfortunately, I would say sooner rather than later. That has me concerned.
But, oh, the conservative side of my three-sided coin is very confused....
I can say pretty unequivocally that I am not in the It's Morally Wrong camp. (Sorry, Mr. Derbyshire.) Or maybe, if I am in the It's Morally Wrong camp, I am so used to that camp being empty and forsaken I forgot I was in a camp. Gay people are going to do what they are going to do, whatever the state says about it. Just like straight people will and do. They can do it in the context of marriage, or outside of it. If marriage from a conservative point of view is a God-endorsed way of channelling the sex drive to a greater social and spiritual good, then surely gay people would benefit from the channelling as well? If marriage lessens promiscuity among gays and gives them a greater stake in the social mainstream (as it is designed to do for straights), then what's not to like? Well, see below for my caveat on that....
My biggest issue with this from the conservative side is well stated today by Jonah Goldberg:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/j...20031121.shtml
There's an interesting contradiction at the heart of the gay marriage debate. Everyone agrees that we are well on our way to living in a country where allowing same-sex marriage is the law of the land, and yet virtually no major national politician and neither of the major political parties supports the idea.
That is what disturbs me most. The left today relies on the unelected judiciary to force upon the citizens things that they would never vote for, that their elected leaders would never vote for, and would never survive a real national debate. The left learned their lesson in the days of desegregation and the abortion rights campaigns -- and that lesson is, if the people don't like what you stand for, bypass them and force it on them through the courts. Because the left knows better than the people, by jove. And the sooner the people realized that and stopped resisting, the better....
There is nothing at all in the Massachusetts constitution or the US one for that matter that forces the state to recognize same-sex marriages. You won't find the words anywhere in it. Four schmucks in black robes have decided the issue for the nation, based on essentially nothing but their own whim. As I stated above, I am confused about whether or not it is the right thing to do. But I know this is the wrong way to do it. If the Democratic Party endorses gay marriage, it should have the balls to stand up and campaign for it. But instead, it lies low, mumbling out of both sides of it's mouth, hoping the courts will do it's dirty work for it. Then, it can throw up its hands, and say, The courts mandated it, there's nothing we can do.....
Fundamental conservative principle that must be learned: Just because you think or feel that something is good doesn't mean it is constitutional. Just because you think or feel that something is bad doesn't mean it is unconstitutional. The constitution is the constitution; it doesn't care what you think or feel. If you want your thoughts or feelings in the constitution, change it to include your thoughts and feelings. Otherwise, follow the constitution as written. Or, just admit that we are governed by your thoughts and feelings, and quit the charade.
One more problem I have with this issue from a conservative point of view: this will bring the Religious Right back to the fore. I am a conservative for 4 main reasons: 1.) I believe that the United States is the last best hope of Man on Earth, and I am proud of my country, and that its values and heritage and citizens must be defended; 2.) I believe in the freedom of individuals as individuals, not as groups; 3.) I believe that economic freedom is as essential to individual freedom as intellectual, political, and religious freedoms are; and 4.) I believe that truth is not relative -- it may be unknown or unknowable, and there may be disagreement about what it is, but it remains all the same, no matter what we think of it.
The left, despite its holier-than-thou rhetoric, has punted on these 4 issues, leaving me to be a conservative by default.
Nowhere in that is the belief that the US is an exclusively Christian nation or that we have to legislate and enforce the Book of Leviticus. It was Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell and their ilk that made me a left-liberal to begin with, and the pitiful response of the left to multiculturalism and the attacks of 9/11 that made me a conservative. As long as the focus remains on the war between the free West and tyrannical murderous Islamism, I am firmly in the conservative coalition. But if this issue helps to bring back the Bible Thumpers, I and many like me will have second thoughts. Which will bring down the conservatives, which will bring down the war, which will end civilization. So, that's bad. This is a distraction we don't need.
My caveat on whether gay people will become more mainstream by admission to mainstream institutions like marriage: I don't think they will. Men are promiscuous, women are not. Men are only faithful because women enforce it. Men having sex with men removes the brake that women put on the process. I will bet right now that 80% or more of same-sex marriages will be lesbian-based, essentially putting the stamp of the state on the monogamous relationships they already maintain. Men marrying men will be a rarity, because gay men will simply not wish to leave the all-you-can-eat sex buffet. And many of those who try will fail, or have open arrangements anyway, or be old enough that fear of lonely old age finally outweighs the drive to screw. This was a doctrinal battle -- gays fought for the right to marry as part of a broad campaign, but they will not use it as a way into the mainstream as they claim. Ideologically, they look down on the mainstream and "the breeders" who occupy it, and don't want the stable life that it promises. They will not see promiscuity as a "problem" that needs to be "solved" by marriage. After an initial burst, this trend will die out, and the activists will move on to some new pet peeve.
But, the march to use the courts to force unpopular ideas upon the citizens will continue unabated.....