I've said it many times before and I'll say it again; those who support traditional marriage are not anti-gay, just anti-gay marriage. There is a world of difference between those two mindsets that gay rights activists are not willing to acknowledge or address for fear that it will lose them sympathy in their fight for supposed "equality."
If you scroll down to the bottom of the Las Vegas Blacklist, you will find a number of interesting tidbits. First, I came across this ultimatum, "Want to get off the Blacklist? Publiclly declare your support for LGBT equality." It is chillingly reminiscent of Marc Gunther's recent statement that, “… silence or neutrality is unacceptable… Either you’re for us or against us…” I am all for gay rights. I don't believe homosexuals should be forced out of an ambulance when an injured partner is taken to the hospital; I don't believe they should be excluded from inheritances because of their sexual orientation. I even believe we could move toward better legislation for working out federal tax inequalities to bring domestic partnerships the full benefits that they are currently attempting to gain by procuring the word marriage. But marriage is not a right to be assigned at will to any who seek its defintion based on love and affection. Marriage is, and always has been, the fundamental unit of society for the raising up of healthy, well-rounded children; and research has shown that no couple can create this ideal environment better than a man and a woman joined together in holy matrimony. So why, then, would we as a society be so brash as to redefine that essential union? The answer to that loaded question could be another post entirely. For now I will leave it up to you to mull it over.
Also at the bottom of the Las Vegas Blacklist homepage is a tiny poll asking "Should politicians such as Barack Obama and Harry Reid be listed on the Blacklist for opposing gay marriage?" Currently the poll stands at 59% Yes and 41% No; an interesting result considering the likely audience of such a site. The word fickle comes to mind.
Posts
7 comments:
I looked at the article. It's interesting that no one is posting names of gay people and asking them to renounce their sexual orientation. I wonder why they are using such violent tactics.
Not very tolerant of other people's ideas are they?
"...those who support traditional marriage..."
One can support both "traditional" (heterosexual) and gay marriage, a fact that seems to elude you.
Anonymous,
I'm sure that is true of some people. It is not a "fact that eludes me," just an opinion I do not prescribe to. I think that's probably obvious. Gay "marriage" would undermine the traditional family structure. I cannot, in good conscience, support something that would have that effect on society. I know you disagree. That much is also obvious. Thank you for pointing that out, though.
Gay "marriage" would undermine the traditional family structure.
No, it would not, just as heterosexual marriages don't undermine the non-traditional family structure.
One of the downsides to redefining marriage to include same-sex couples would be the weakening of the meaning of marriage, which would cause more divorces. Human nature being what it is, if the meaning of marriage is weakened, it will be psychologically easier for even more people to divorce. Look at what happened when "no-fault" divorce was legalized. The divorce rate skyrocketed. If the nature of marriage is further undermined in the minds of couples then when things get rocky, more couples will be tempted not to work through their problems and get happy again but rather to divorce and find someone else.
Heterosexual marriages don't undermine anything because, when lived as God intended them to be lived, they are natural and healthy and reproductive. Where they are unhealthy (excessive divorce and abuse) is where legislation needs to focus on improvement rather than attempt to redefine and remake.
Legalizing gay "marriage" would be another large blow to the armor of tradition and truth that protects children from gender confusion and deprivation. Growing up without a father or mother would be travesty.
And, yes, I am aware of all those single moms and dads out there raising children. The deprivation of one opposite-sex parent is as much a travesty for those children as it would be for a child of a lesbian or gay couple. But as Beetle Blogger put it so eloquently, while one circumstance seeks to deprive by design, the other is most often an unfortunate result of an unforeseen trial (death or divorce).
Now, recently I was made aware of a large movement of individuals electing to become single parents. This, too, is sad. We've forgotten the children. While we pound out laws making divorce easier, redefining marriage, and tolerating pornography, our children are cowering in the corner, staring with anxious eyes at their bleak futures. Society no longer stands between them and the darkness. Instead, darkness is being welcomed into homes through television, Internet, violent video games...and now destructive legislation improperly imposed against the will of the people by judicial activists.
Post a Comment