Abortion vs. Gay Marriage
Andrew Sullivan comments today on a question posed by Jon Rauch.
“The Senate Republicans have vowed to push their anti-gay marriage amendment, even though it won't stand a chance of getting the necessary 67 votes. The point is political and rhetorical. They are trying to build momentum, raise money, and keep the cause of banning same-sex unions alive.”
My guess is that by looking at the polling numbers, waving the anti-gay flag will provide more of that momentum and money the Republicans are looking for.
The American populace is just about split on the abortion issue, but the ‘yuck’ factor of homosexuality shows a greater divide.
Convictions be damned, the Republicans know their base. They know how to fire up the fringe element of the religious right by pushing the idea that gays are dangerous, perverse, have an agenda, evil, and so forth.
The amendment to the Constitution proposed by Republicans to ban gay marriage is troubling. Under the guise of family values, sanctity of marriage, freedom, or something like that, the Republicans want to amend the Constitution to exclude some Americans from participating in what other Americans are allowed to do. On top of that, separate but equal institutions of civil unions is the bread crumb being offered instead.
Some arguments I have heard: “Marriage is not a right”, “I’m sick of the gay agenda”, “Once they can legally marry, they’ll want to adopt children”, “God said homosexuality is an abomination”, and my personal favorite: “This is one more step towards polygamy and marriage to animals and family members.”
By the way, if anyone knows what the ‘gay agenda’ is, could you please post an explanation? None of the gays and lesbians I've met seem to know, so perhaps someone out there could enlighten us.
Well, here at The Pepper Farm we think that if marriage is not a right, then certainly you cannot amend the constitution to remove the privilege or desire for two people to commit to one another. Ted and Sandy’s marriage does not affect mine, why would SpongeBob and Buster’s relationship affect mine?
The idea that gay folks will raise kids seems to scare the hell out of some people, but the idea of single moms, single dads, abusive heterosexual environments, and the fact that there are plenty of children out there that need a good home period, is not addressed.
Hmmm. Perhaps it's the idea of a gay marriage turning out to be a good thing, and possibly that children raised by gay couples might (gasp!) grow up a) normal and b) not be gay.
The incest and animal arguments are hardly worth addressing. Two consenting adults do not equal marrying a dog, or marrying a child. Does this really need to be explained?
“The Senate Republicans have vowed to push their anti-gay marriage amendment, even though it won't stand a chance of getting the necessary 67 votes. The point is political and rhetorical. They are trying to build momentum, raise money, and keep the cause of banning same-sex unions alive.”
My guess is that by looking at the polling numbers, waving the anti-gay flag will provide more of that momentum and money the Republicans are looking for.
The American populace is just about split on the abortion issue, but the ‘yuck’ factor of homosexuality shows a greater divide.
Convictions be damned, the Republicans know their base. They know how to fire up the fringe element of the religious right by pushing the idea that gays are dangerous, perverse, have an agenda, evil, and so forth.
The amendment to the Constitution proposed by Republicans to ban gay marriage is troubling. Under the guise of family values, sanctity of marriage, freedom, or something like that, the Republicans want to amend the Constitution to exclude some Americans from participating in what other Americans are allowed to do. On top of that, separate but equal institutions of civil unions is the bread crumb being offered instead.
Some arguments I have heard: “Marriage is not a right”, “I’m sick of the gay agenda”, “Once they can legally marry, they’ll want to adopt children”, “God said homosexuality is an abomination”, and my personal favorite: “This is one more step towards polygamy and marriage to animals and family members.”
By the way, if anyone knows what the ‘gay agenda’ is, could you please post an explanation? None of the gays and lesbians I've met seem to know, so perhaps someone out there could enlighten us.
Well, here at The Pepper Farm we think that if marriage is not a right, then certainly you cannot amend the constitution to remove the privilege or desire for two people to commit to one another. Ted and Sandy’s marriage does not affect mine, why would SpongeBob and Buster’s relationship affect mine?
The idea that gay folks will raise kids seems to scare the hell out of some people, but the idea of single moms, single dads, abusive heterosexual environments, and the fact that there are plenty of children out there that need a good home period, is not addressed.
Hmmm. Perhaps it's the idea of a gay marriage turning out to be a good thing, and possibly that children raised by gay couples might (gasp!) grow up a) normal and b) not be gay.
The incest and animal arguments are hardly worth addressing. Two consenting adults do not equal marrying a dog, or marrying a child. Does this really need to be explained?
posted by Redjalapeno at Wednesday, February 02, 2005
3 Opinions:
If the government allows gay's to redefine "Marraige" to allow two same-sex individuals to be united under law, then why wouldn't/shouldn't someone else be able to further distort the definition/meaning of "Marraige" to allow them to be united with several "concenting" adults or be united with an animal? What would prevent this? Should we prevent this. If the humans are concenting and the animals don't seem to be harmed, who is being harmed? Why should we prevent this individual from being lawfully united to thier pet? I'm currious as to how, if gay marraige were legalized, the government can prevent the "slippery slope" side-effects.
Hey, dude, just came over to thank you for voting for me at Wampum (wish you had an e-mail link, this feels really cheesy, like I'm campaigning or some such shit, and using your blog to do it) --- and I gotta say, brave ol' Anonymous there reeeeeaaaaalllllllly has a great handle on REALITY.
You fucking wank.
Grow the fuck up a bit YOURSELF, before you start trying to decide what OTHER PEOPLE SHOULD DO WITH THEIR LIVES.
Jeebus H. Fucking Christ on a goddamned cracker. BUY A CLUE, WOULDJA PLEASE?!??!?!?!
And, to respond to your actual post --- yeah, it pisses me off like all hell that they won't let gay couples adopt. Sure, sure, you can love those foster children, support them, give them every single drop of blood/effort/love in your body --- but no, you can't call them YOURS. 'Cause, you know, then you wouldn't just be an extension of the state (which is doing SUCH a great job with the kids as it is!) --- no, THEN, we'd be allowing you to be AN ACTUAL PARENT, which isn't nearly as important as reinforcing phobic stereotypes and cultist bullshit with your tax dollars.
Fucking idiotic pencil-necked geek idiot motherfuckers.
Oh, and heaven forbid we teach anybody about BIRTH CONTROL, right??? 'Cause then we might miss-out on the next generation of CANNON-FODDER.
Unwanted children stay unwanted all of their lives... but that doesn't give anybody the right to KEEP IT THAT WAY.
Clearly, ASC is unable to articulate a clear argument to address the issue at hand. But, if anyone else wishes to discus the topic, I'm game. By the way ASC, I wasn't stating an opinion one way or the other about gay mairage. The question was/is how can the government stop the broadening definition of mairage to prevent man-dog, woman-bird unions, when it has set a precedent with broadening the definition to include man-man, and woman-woman? Try to remove yourself from your emotions, and thing about the question objectively and logivally.
Post a Comment
<< Home