The Real End Game of the Gay Marriage Debate [Reader Post]

Loading

supreme-court-gay-marriage-detail

Curse you, Adam Corolla! As my faithful readers know (thank you, both of you!) I generally only weigh in on topics where I can find an angle that somebody smarter than me hasn’t already written. This is another one of those ideas that I’d been kicking around for a while but never got around to writing, and Mr. Corolla beat me to the punch. In a recent podcast he pointed out that Gay Marriage is hardly an end point to the debate:

“It’ll be legalized, hopefully, and then you’ll think we’ll be done with it, and then they’ll say, ‘we want to get married at the Crystal Cathedral,'” Carolla said on a recent podcast. “And the guys at the Crystal Cathedral will go ‘no, we don’t agree with it, and according to our faith, a man doesn’t lie down with another man, and a chick who looks like a man doesn’t lay down with another human who drives a Subaru. We don’t condone this.’ There’s a gonna be a march, and then there’s gonna be a thing and it’s gonna go to the Supreme Court again. This much I know … there will be more fighting. it will continue.”

I raised the incrementalism argument when I wrote about this subject last summer, and now with the subject becoming bigger in the news I’m seeing more of the incrementalism that conservatives are rightly concerned about. Here was my take:

Gay marriage was a subject I had never really had an opinion about until around twelve years ago when I read Jesse Ventura’s first book, “Do I Stand Alone?” Mind you, back in 2000 Jesse was still a new governor in Minnesota and a breath of fresh air in the system, not the full time conspiracy theorist he’s become today. On the issue of gay marriage he looked at both sides, and his assertion was that it was wrong to discriminate against two consenting adults from legal benefits from a system that they have paid taxes into based on their gender preference. On the other side, the term “Marriage” has an important spiritual meaning in religions practiced by many Americans, and their views should be respected as well. His solution was civil unions – granting legal rights for gay couples while still respecting the people whose religious views would be offended.

This seems like a reasonable compromise for both sides, and one that I supported then and still continue to do so. In fact, contrary to the leftist notion that conservatives are opposed to “gay rights” polls show that the majority of Conservatives as well as Republicans support civil unions.

Now, this was an opinion that I adopted thirteen years ago, and it still is my opinion today. But look at how the public perception, and particularly in the mass media has “evolved” since that time. Back in 2000 my stance would be considered moderate to somewhat left of center1  in most quarters, depending on the person I’m standing next to. But today? The fact that I don’t wholeheartedly support “Marriage Equality“, or whatever the latest term is to make the leftist position sound centrist makes me some bigoted extremist who is probably ready to throw a white sheet over his head and burn rainbow painted crosses on Harvey Milk’s grave. I go into my arguments in a lot more depth at my link, but while I haven’t changed, the left certainly has. Each step where leftist thought is met “halfway” (or anywhere) automatically becomes the new center to them, and anything to the right of that new line is right wing extremism.

I laid out before two of my concerns as to how we’re already seeing negative impacts of recognizing gay marriage  –forcing gay marriage to be taught in schools, as opposed to trivialities like reading and writing, and in preventing children in foster homes from getting placed with families.

When conservatives raise the flag of what will be next down the road, such as redefining marriage for multiple partners, the left just tut-tuts about how they’re overreacting, just as they did when gay marriage was mentioned back in 2000. The problem is that California has already considered polygamy. Jeremy Irons also raised the touchy subject of this possibly leading to incestuous unions, which gets the same chuckle and a head shake reaction. But I ask, why not? Can someone from the left tell me where this issue will be 5-10 years from now? Does this end with “Marriage Equality”? or whatever you’re telling us is now the new center? I look at how our schools are infantilizing our kids today – suspensions for chewing a cookie shaped like a gun, or as a friend whose son is in the Maryland public school system recently told me, the horror of a teacher using a lighter for a science experiment resulted in notes being sent to all of the parents whose kids might have been traumatized by the event. When Baby Bob starts out in school if he calls another kid on the playground “gay”2 is he going to be forced into a modern leftist re-education camp known as “sensitivity training?” And as his parents, will Sister Babe and I also be held accountable for this vile hate speech coming from our child? Yes, it sounds ridiculous, but look at what’s happening up in Canada:

The Diversity Celebrators have their exquisitely sensitive antennae attuned for anything less than enthusiastic approval. Very quickly, traditional religious teaching on homosexuality will be penned up within church sanctuaries, and “faith-based” ancillary institutions will be crowbarred into submission. What’s that? I’m “scaremongering”? Well, it’s now routine in Canada, where Catholic schools in Ontario are obligated by law to set up Gay-Straight Alliance groups, where a Knights of Columbus hall in British Columbia was forced to pay compensation for declining a lesbian wedding reception, and where the Rev. Stephen Boisson wrote to his local paper, objecting to various aspects of “the homosexual agenda” and was given a lifetime speech ban by the Alberta “Human Rights” Tribunal ordering him never to utter anything “disparaging” about homosexuals ever again, even in private. Although his conviction was eventually overturned by the Court of Queen’s Bench after a mere seven-and-a-half years of costly legal battles, no Canadian newspaper would ever publish such a letter today. The words of Chief Justice Burger would now attract a hate-crime prosecution in Canada, as the Supreme Court in Ottawa confirmed only last month.

Of course, if you belong to certain approved identity groups, none of this will make any difference. The Rev. Al Sharpton, who famously observed that Africans of the ancient world had made more contributions to philosophy and mathematics than all “them Greek homos,” need not zip his lips – any more than Dr. Bilal Philips, the Toronto Islamic scholar who argues that homosexuals should be put to death, need fear the attention of Canada’s “human rights” commissions. But for the generality of the population this will be one more subject around which one has to tiptoe on ever-thinner eggshells.

And back to Adam Corolla’s original point, at what point does any church that refuses to perform a gay marriage ceremony get labeled a “Hate Group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center? Leftists like to claim that their goal is to have the state out of the business of marriage. While I think many of them actually believe that, I also think that the ultimate goal is the opposite – to get the church out of the business of marriage. Many leftists follow different religious faiths to various degrees, but at the end of the day Leftism is their one true God that will have no other Gods before it.

So my question to all of the gay marriage proponents today is this: If I adopt your position today and accept it as the new center how are you going to “evolve” over the next decade to turn anyone holding your opinion today into hateful right wing bigotry? Will we see any clergy on college campuses who don’t endorse gay marriage attacked in the same manner that’s happening at George Washington University today? Will Polygamy be perfectly acceptable as the recent article in The Economist argues? Scroll down to the comments if you want to start reading some ideas that are just downright creepy. I’ll be curious to see where the leftist feminist groups will weigh in over the practice of polygamy that is so harmful to women. Or do we start normalizing pedophilia in the name of tolerance?

Do my last few ideas sound over the top and kind of crazy? I’ll be the first to admit that they do, but a decade ago I would have said the same about today’s debate. I like to be proactive, so assuming I give in and surrender to this new normal, I have one question for all of you leftists reading this. Can I just get a heads up as to why you’re going to hate me again a decade from now?

1. For my more conservative readers, I’ve lived in the DC area since 1999. If my civil unions idea seems radical leftist to you keep in mind in this town everyone half a step to the right of Michael Moore thinks their views are mainstream and moderate.

2. And no, we’re not going to be encouraging Baby Bob to call anyone gay or any other forms of name calling. From what I hear this is still a favored taunt used by little kids on the playground, and I’m guessing if gay becomes an outlawed term kids will find other colorful insults to hurl at one another.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
337 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

#245:

I did NOT critique ilovebeezwarzone’s style. I said that I APPRECIATED it, but DID have to take exception to a few of his word choices. There’s a difference.

Warzone is colorful. Refreshing. And also reasonable at times, and I like that.
And thanks for complimenting my English. You should see what I can put on a ping-pong ball!

: #241:
You are correct. I am pushing…squeezing for an answer, and I think that you know what her truthful answer would be. Whether or not she gives a truthful answer is irrelevent, as the point being made is that words like “sodomite” are being used selectively. (You think not?) And when the word “sodomite” is applied exclusively to homosexual males, the application is bigoted.

Nan G
imagine the cost of DEBRIEFING ALL THE SCHOOLS TEACHERS AND THE STUDENTS of ALL SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITY, imagine the years it will take to destroy the destruction itself,
and install a TRUTH FROM SO MANY LIES with FACTS on each lies,
it will be a monstrous job but urgent and necessary, to return to the true AMERICA
with the next CONSERVATIVE PRESIDENT, which will have the tools already from the first day of his
PRESIDENCY
it will make ALL AMERICA feel already the deliverance from so much IMPOSITION, since 2008.
what a party ,AMERICA you will have then,
don’t give up good PEOPLE, IT WILL COME,
just thinking of it make my heart beat faster for the BEAUTIFUL AMERICA,

@ilovebeeswarzone: yep, Bees, sounds as if you found a ‘married’ cord.

@George Wells:

I am pushing…squeezing for an answer,

I provided one. You obviously dismiss it. That’s your problem, not mine.

And when the word “sodomite” is applied exclusively to homosexual males, the application is bigoted.

Perhaps you would like to provide my quote where I said I applied the term “sodomite” exclusively to homosexual males? Oh, wait, I didn’t so you can’t.

Your a joke, George. Only you’re not funny, just pathetic.

@retire05: I can’t figure out why George persists. He hasn’t been right on anything yet. He consistently misquotes, and then says you were ‘thinking’ bigoted thoughts so that meant you were a bigot. I wish we could get credit for what we think, then I’d ‘think’ I was rich and suddenly get a lot of money. I find it most interesting that this thread now has 255 comments and no homosexual person has been able to state what the ‘end game’ is. I know and you know, so I suspect they do also, they just don’t want to have to say in public what it is.

@Redteam:

Tell me how my answer will affect you.

I’m just curious why trying to make strangers’ lives more difficult or miserable is so important to you.

Now you’re just being silly. married does mean what it means, a union between a man and a woman.

I’m beings silly? I know men who are married to each other. I know women who are married to each other. Legally married. They have marriage certificates. So how is it silly that I recognize reality as it’s unfolding before my eyes, while you bitterly cling to your personal definition of a word? I get it. You’re a conservative. You hate change. You wish the world stopped changing at some arbitrary point in your past – a time when “things were perfect” – and you resent the world for moving forward ever since. Everyone has their halcyon days, but only a segment of highly unimaginative conservatives think their halcyon days should be the halcyon days for everyone else. And aside from being a mindbogglingly selfish outlook, it’s a highly illogical position to take, considering reality, the world, physics, life, are change. What annoys me is the self-serving inconsistency in how this philosophy is applied. You’re using a computer, so I doubt it riles you up to the same degree when people don’t strictly define the word “mail” as a piece of paper that physically traveled between two people. No. I’m sure picking and choosing where things can and cannot change is something that’s so natural to you at this point, you no longer recognize the incongruousness of it all.

@Tom:

I’m just curious why trying to make strangers’ lives more difficult or miserable is so important to you.

I fail to see where anything I’ve said will affect the lives of any strangers.

I’m beings silly? I know men who are married to each other. I know women who are married to each other. Legally married. They have marriage certificates.

No they’re not. If they passed a law that said that a man with a beard was a monkey, it would not make him a monkey. Passing a law saying that a condition that only applies to men and women will now apply to two men or two women does not make it a fact. You ever heard the saying, call a spade a spade. Well, call a marriage a marriage. And that ain’t two men or two women.

All that other crap you’re spouting is hogwash. Tell me how physics have changed what a woman is today vs 200 years ago?

You have a computer, so doubt it riles you up to the same degree when people don’t strictly define “mail”

Have you noticed that ‘mail’ on a computer is called email? I don’t think you can legitimately point out where I ‘accept’ some changes, but not others. I accept that a man is a man. I accept that a woman is a woman. I accept that a marriage is a union of one of each. Why can’t you accept that a union of two men is not a marriage. As I’ve said many times, I have no problem with men or women living together in matrimony, but it should be called what it is, gay marriage, lesbian marriage, but not marriage. Do you have a son? Do you call him a girl? Why not? Are you resisting change? I’ll repeat, that you are just being silly with some of your statements and examples. Why don’t you give it a little thought?

@Jim Hlavac:

@Tom: sir, you don’t have the right to tell me I’m not married.

Jim, take the time to read the comments before shooting from the hip, before looking like you don’t know what you’re talking about. I wrote nothing of the kind.

@Tom:

physics

I almost overlooked that. Tell me which ‘law of physics’ has changed? Does Einstein know about that?

@Redteam:

@Richard Wheeler: My opinion of #201, sounds about right. Tom was sucking up to George for some reason.

There it is. I enjoy seeing people like you unmask yourselves. And it happens every time.

@Redteam:

I fail to see where anything I’ve said will affect the lives of any strangers.

Do us all a favor. Don’t answer the question. I think you more or less have already.

@Redteam:

You misunderstand. I’ll take the laws of physics over the laws that you live by any day. What do the laws of physics care about your personal definition of the word “marriage” anyway?

@Tom:
Tom, try to keep up. you said:

it’s a highly illogical position to take, considering reality, the world, physics, life, are change.

was not part of that statement that physics, are change?

you said:

Do us all a favor. Don’t answer the question. I think you more or less have already.

There was a question there?
You appear to be very confused, sorry about that.

@Redteam:

I find it most interesting that this thread now has 255 comments and no homosexual person has been able to state what the ‘end game’ is. I know and you know, so I suspect they do also, they just don’t want to have to say in public what it is.

Here’s your answer:

Turning our schools into recruitment centers.

@retire05: Yes, as I said, you and I know it, they do too, they just want to try to fool all the people some of the time.
We know that two men/women having sex together is not normal. No children can be produced. I personally don’t think homosexual partners should be allowed to adopt children, but it will be allowed, as the do gooders will think that ‘it is the right thing to do’. Well, it’s not. A child needs a mother and a father.
There is not a chance I would read that book, I already know the intent, I don’t have to read about it. As long as the teacher’s union control the classrooms, a hell of a lot of ‘indoctrination’ is taking place.

@Redteam:

I wasn’t suggesting you read the book. But it is clear what the intention is. And that book has been around since 1991. So there is nothing new. You see, the intent (goal) has always been to “normalize” homosexuality, a practice that has been denounced by every civilization from the beginning of time. Yes, it was common in ancient Rome, but even the Romans had their rules about it. It was cool to be on the giving end, but anyone on the receiving end was usually a slave or lower class youth that was subservient, and thought to be nothing more than human trash to be thrown away. History teaches us that the homosexual practices of the Romans contributed greatly to their downfall. Same with the Spartans.

Tom can argue times change until he is blue in the face, but the fact remains that some things stay constant; the sun still rises in the east and sets in the west, water is still wet, what goes up must come down and nature has built humans to reproduce for the survival of the species. And no amount of science will ever change the fact that it takes a male sperm cell and a female ovarian egg to merge to create a human. Anything else will simply be a clone, not a human.

@retire05: I know you weren’t ‘recommending’ the book. It’s as if they believe that if they can call a homo relationship a ‘marriage’ that it will suddenly become ‘acceptable’ behavior. The intent is to force acceptance. It’s not the same thing, but it makes me think of someone forcing the boy/girl to dance with the ugly girl/boy with the intent that if they make them do it, they will like it. Fat chance. I don’t care if people love others of the same sex, I really don’t, but I don’t want them to try to make me accept the fact that it’s ‘normal’. When it’s about 3% of the population. I feel sorry for the people that are born at the wrong end of the scale, and I’m all for normalizing things for them as much as practical, but telling me that they can get ‘married’ is a little off tilt. married is a man and a woman.

:

Do you call women “sodomites”?
(It is a “yes” or “no” question.)

@George Wells:

Is the Oxford dictionary meaning gender specific? That is your answer. Just because it doesn’t allow for the fueling of your agenda is not my problem.

:

Bigot.

re: #271:

OK, You tell ME why retire05 won’t answer the question – offer one plausible explanation other than that an honest answer would prove my point. I’ll give her one thing, and that’s that she has enough integrity not to make the obvious lie. You all should be ashamed!

@George Wells:

OK, You tell ME why retire05 won’t answer the question

Liar. I provided the definition for sodomist and that is my answer. Does that definition mention any particular gender? So, if I consider the definition to be the correct one, and it doesn’t mention gender, most rational thinking people would accept that. Not you, you just choose not to accept it. I’m not playing your little queer games.

You all should be ashamed!

Well, there you have it. The truth comes out. All of neanderthals who don’t agree with George’s sodomist life style should be ashamed and we are nothing if not a

Bigot

.

retire
THE ANIMALS don’t sodomize no matter the gender,
we never heard it done never

:

You are what you are. I am what I am. I admitted who I am. You proved what you are. I could not have proved your bigotry without your help. Thank you.

@George Wells: George, you haven’t proved anything about bigotry except that you think someone’s unsaid thoughts make them a bigot. I’m not sure what that makes you, as I don’t care to assign a ‘name’ to it. As far as sodomy, I’d say that a woman can be the sodomee, but not the sodomer. It takes a penis entering a cavity not designed for it. Both genders have such cavities, only a female has a cavity that is designed for it.
Why should I be ‘ashamed’ that I feel sorry for people that were born with their wires crossed? I’d hate to have to live their lives, but that doesn’t mean that I am willing to call a gay man a woman. It does not mean that we should add to their misery by pretending they are something that they are not. You should be ashamed for proposing such a sham..

@George Wells:

I could not have proved your bigotry without your help. Thank you.

You didn’t prove anything except that you are not willing to accept any answer that doesn’t fit with your agenda.

You’re right. I don’t like you. You are a narrow minded ass who prejudges people and can only drive your sick agenda. Ironic how you damand answers to questions and then refused to accept them because it was not what you wanted the person to say yet admit that you refuse to answer any of my questions.

Go away. Hlavac has a website where you can moan and whine about how evil straights are and how mean they are to you.

retire05: You are a narrow minded ass who prejudges people and can only drive your sick agenda.

The irony abounds…..

:

The Law has established repeatedly that a person of either gender who forcibly introduces into the rectum of another person of either gender any object (presumable that approximately fits into said orifice), that person is guilty of sodomy. One is the “sodomer,” the other is the “sodomee.” The gender of either is irrelevant.

I thought that I made that clear. Do you not recall the case a few years back where a black man was sodomized by several police who used a broom handle? It is the object that penetrates, not the junk hanging, that qualifies the definition. At least that is how the courts have read it.

#278:

I don’t answer always answer your posts because you don’t always ask questions. Look back at #278 – see any question marks?

I have agreed with some of what you have said (re: proper usage of words like “homosexual,” “sodomy” etc., and I have answered many of your questions. You just didn’t like my answers. (Remember calling me a “liar” repeatedly? It was when you didn’t like my answers.)

If there is a question you would LIKE me to answer, ask it civily, and I will do my best to give you an honest answer. But if you bury it in a torrent of condemnation, I probably won’t find it. Keep it simple.

@George Wells:

If there is a question you would LIKE me to answer, ask it civily

Too lae, George. Any civility I might have held toward you ended when you called me a bigot although you know nothing about me and had no concrete reason for that except your own determination that I did not answer a question to your satisfaction.

:

Not a problem.

@George Wells: Sorry George, but like the word marriage, the misuse of the word sodomy by the uninformed, does not change the meaning of the word. I don’t accept your determination that it means something that it doesn’t mean. A gay person is not ‘gay’, two men are not ‘married’, a person without a penis cannot sodomize anyone.

:

And if I stuck an artificial penis up your butt, that would NOT be sodomy? Is ejaculate necessary?

George Wells
If so, I bet you alone would ejaculate from your vice pleasure,

@MataHarley:

Do you and your buddy, Aye, coordinate your attacks? Funny, as soon as one of you show up, here comes the other. Ummmmmmm!!!!!!!

@George Wells: George, sodomy is an act between two persons, it doesn’t involve tools and toys. Don’t you think you should learn when to stop digging?

@MataHarley: It’s not clear who you are quoting or where it’s from. It appears that you were quoting George writing to Retire.

@Redteam, you are incorrect, as you will see when you reread comment #278.

@retire05, Aye’s around? Didn’t see him here, but it’s nice he’s still showing up occasionally. Miss that guy.

Meanwhile, I see you still have your act as a whining/victim down pat, while simultaneously @accusing others of the same. Again, the irony abounds.

@MataHarley:

Meanwhile, I see you still have your act as a whining/victim down pat, while simultaneously @accusing others of the same. Again, the irony abounds.

Victim? No, I’m not a victim.

And now you feign shock that Aye is here? Yeah, and if anyone believes that, I have some ocean front property in Lubbock to sell them.

I “feign shock”? LOL! I see you insist we add omnipotent and omnipresent to the rest of your self perceived pious qualities, tired one. Don’t see him here. Haven’t read all the threads, so I haven’t a clue as to what you’re babbling about, what he’s discussing, nor why you feel singled out for tag team persecution. But it is, as always, your predictable responses when criticized.

I’ve read this thread off an on. Frankly don’t agree with any of you on your marriage views. But rather than interject the novel idea that government’s foray into the marriage license business – based solely on discrimination and control over society – is wrong for all, you’ve subjected the reader here to your guttural descriptions of alternative sexual lifestyles.

Me? All I see is you as some sort of faux conservative who supports unconstitutional government discrimination when you allow them to seize the power to determine who marries, who doesn’t, and who gets money and benefits for following their mandates.

Marriage should be returned to religion and their rites, and stay out of the government tax codes and law. But then, we’d sure have an awful lot of divorce lawyers on the unemployment line. After all, when they gave permission to marry, they then had to give permission to UNmarry. It’s big legal business.

@MataHarley:

tag team persecution

Hmmmmm????

Did I just mention anything about “tag team persecution” to you?

Freudian slip, Mata?

Sorry, toots, but you ceased to get under my skin a long time ago. Your value as provocateur has long been spent.

See ya. I’m sure your ego will require you to have the last word.

I realize you aren’t the brightest lightbulb in the pack, tired one, but your own whining comment…

Do you and your buddy, Aye, coordinate your attacks?

… is the quintessential definition of “tag team”. But perhaps your limited language skills require no one uses alternative phrases to describe your own words, eh?

@MataHarley: Actually, I wasn’t incorrect because I only said that it appeared to be. Had you quoted #278 or Retire05 then it would have been clear. But that’s now straightened out.

@MataHarley:

I realize you aren’t the brightest lightbulb in the pack,

So, I don’t know everyone that posts on this blog Mata, but just curious, who do you think is the brightest bulb in the pack? The only reason I ask is that in the exchange of ideas on a blog, referring to others intelligence (which I have done myself at times) rarely improves the quality of the discussion. I think you write very well, but I also think Retire05 writes well also. One thing I wish you would elaborate on, you said:

All I see is you as some sort of faux conservative who supports unconstitutional government discrimination when you allow them to seize the power to determine who marries,

If Retire05’s positions are ‘faux conservative’, then what would a real conservative’s position be on homosexuality? If either the state or federal government didn’t have laws concerning marriages and unions, how would all the legalities be handled? If the churches or religions did marriages, etc, what would be the ramifications if someone were not religious? Does that mean without church sanction, they could not marry? Mata, I’m not familiar with your views on marriages, but do you advocate free and open relationships or do you lean toward men and women being married to only one person of the opposite sex? Just curious.

@Redteam, I see your minor dilemma.

I don’t always use the “reply” function to hotlink back to the comment. What I do, and is common, is that I put the commenter’s name first with a colon, then copy/paste what they said. Ergo, had I been quoting George, it would have been a comma (not a colon) following the name, “retire05”.

But I understand your confusion… that it would have been more clear to you had I put “retire05 #278” before the colon punctuation. Suggestion pocketed for future.

I really prefer this first part of the POST, the first fiftys
where alive and well.
now we have arrived at the surely last PART, and it has degenerate into not what BROTHER BOB would have thunk,

@ilovebeeswarzone: Amen, Brother Bees

@Redteam:

I find it most interesting that this thread now has 255 comments and no homosexual person has been able to state what the ‘end game’ is.

Cute. I love people who think they’re clever when they’re being obvious.

So who are the homosexual persons on this thread, by the way? And why is a person who refuses to answer the simple question “why do you care who marries whom” accusing others of evasion?

@Redteam:

We know that two men/women having sex together is not normal. No children can be produced

You believe sex is solely for procreation? Wow, you must lead an exciting life.

@Redteam: That would be Sister Bees and I ask Why was this post any better early than late and why won’t you answer Tom’s simple questions?

Sex only for procreation? Does ANYONE believe that?