I subjected myself to an editorial written by Scott Maxwell. He goes on about what an outrage it is that gov. Crist opposes the abolition of traditional marriage and adoption.
Here was my commentary that I posted to Orlando Slantinel:
Same-sex couples have every right to be together and express themselves however they choose. If we are to boil down the arguments for same-sex marriage and same-sex parental adoption what we are left with is the notion that any group (of any number) of people who choose to mimic actual marriage and actual adoptive parenthood should be allowed to do so because they want to. There is no hypocrisy in being gay and opposing laws that degrade the value of the unique and necessary institution of marriage between a man and a woman. There is nothing duplicitous in being a loving and caring gay couple and still opposing the legislation that is tantamount to allowing any group of consenting adults to adopt and raise children simply because they want to and so that such ability validates them personally.
To all who support gay marriage and adoption I implore you to look more seriously at this issue. Try to open your mind and understand "the other side" of this debate. We have tolerated your intolerance for quite a while. It's time you step up to the plate, lose your emotionalism, and think about the long term and unintended consequences of what you're proposing.
Pretty good, huh? Yeah, well, whatever. I thought it was good. Sigh ... I don't know, guys. The left just doesn't understand the right and I find that sad. If they did, they wouldn't have such completely off-base assumptions about why we think the way we think. Oh well. It's all cyclical. People will figure this stuff out eventually and even when they do they will surely forget other lessons of the past. Such is life, I suppose.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What about the couples that marry for citizenship or adoption or health benefits already?.....
ReplyDeleteI know that couples marry for citizenship and there's really not much that can be done about that. Indeed, I am quite sure there are many sham marriages that take place just for the sake of citizenship.
ReplyDeleteBut health benefits? I doubt there's more than a handful of marriages that have taken place only because of health benefits. I think they ought to allow common law marriage as well as gay civil unions take care of this small matter.
As for adoption - I'm not aware of two people marrying only so they can adopt. I'm not saying it's never happened, but that just seems terribly odd to me.
The larger point is this: right now marriage is tied to certain civil and legal privileges and maybe that's the problem to begin with. Why should government reward behavior it has no business in to begin with? That government does so is yet another example of the over-reaching arm of government creating unintended consequences.
And to add a final point to all of this: as the meaning of marriage continues to degrade, as it is doing and as it will surely continue to do, I suspect we'll find ourselves creating new language to define "traditional" marriages VS gay, polygamous, and other forms of group marriage. I know that only gay marriage is on the table right now, but the rest is coming. I've even suggested that marriage between people and animals and perhaps even between people and inanimate objects may come to pass - but in retrospect I kind of doubt that. Society's sensibilities are cyclical and I'm sure the marriage free-for-all will come to and well before that.
Re-reading my last comment: the unintended consequences I am talking about in this case, if it's not already clear, is the degradation of the meaning of marriage.
ReplyDeleteAh yes, although I agree with the whole "degradation of marriage" conversation personally... my issue becomes how marriage and government got into bed together.... You really need to hang out with Art. I hear this same stuff everday from him :)
ReplyDeleteI'd love to hang out with Art ... But it's a hike to Beacon. Maybe we can meet up for a beer and some pool in ... Raleigh, NC.
ReplyDeleteReally though, the funny thing about the marriage debate is that I don't even necessarily oppose gay "marriage" or a version if it, per se. What this debate has exposed is just how much government uses us to its own end by "encouraging" this and that behavior with tax breaks, etc. And this do this also to buy votes.
What it's also exposed is the insane vitriol from the Left. I was called all kinds of names and advised that I was a hate monger for that comment I left. Wasn't it pretty benign? I didn't detect any "hate" in it. The replies to the comment on the other hand were full of it.
I think Tracey's idea of 'Garriage' is the way to go. We'll just call it garriage and then garried couples can be pandered to and bought out just like married people!!