Blogger smeared by homosexual apologists

Matt Margolis ^ | 12/1/2004 | agitate

[Agitate]

The responses to this article against homosexual "marriage" made me angry, especially the one comparing mixed marriage to gay unions.

As a product of at least 3 generations of mixed marriages from both parents I find it EXTREMELY insulting to be compared to homosexuals.

First of all, their is only one "race" on this planet, the human one. Second, the minor physical characteristics which make us look different; melanin in the skin, bone structure, hair follicle shape, etc--are all physical, observable characteristics that are immutable. Conversely, there is no gay gene!

I am continually outraged by the comparison of mixed marriage to homosexual behavior. This is the kind of "shove it down their throat" behavior that has driven me from being tolerant of homosexuality as I am of other sexual behaviors I disapprove of, to being ready to challenge gays on every front. Adulterers don't try to pass laws saying what they do is good and right, do they?

Please pay attention to the comments in response to this well written piece.

That Thing Called Marriage

I was amused at a recent rant over at Daily Kos which attacks the very popular position that gay couples should not be legally allowed to marry (Kos, of course ignores the fact that a sizeable percentage of people who are Democrats also are against gay marriage)...

He says:

Arguments against gay marriage are predicated entirely, 100 percent, on emotion.

That can be said of virtually every single argument made by Democrats when debating issues. Some I have previously written about.

And the vehicle for those emotional appeals are the word "marriage". A mere semantic.

If semantics are not a big deal, what's wrong with "civil unions"? For Kos, it seems that calling them "civil unions" isn't good enough... The word "marriage" apparently is really important.

Kos later describes marriage as

that thing with a 50 percent success rate

Well, gee, if "that thing" doesn't mean what it used because 50% of them end up in divorce, why does the gay lobby want it so badly? Kos wants to talk about emotional arguments, what does he think he and other people who agree with him are doing when they use the divorce rate as a means to sneer at the institution of marriage? It doesn't make sense that they push so hard for marriage and at the same time justify their position by belittling it.

Kos's biggest problem is that he seems to ignore the fact that being against gay marriage is not limited to conservatives or Republicans. Of course he knows this. You didn't need to be an expert at math to understand the votes made in Georgia, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Utah, each of which easily passed a ban of same-sex marriage. Kos still presents it as a "conservative bigotted [sic] position" and completely ignores what could be as much as 25% of his own party that agrees that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Of course, this is the reason why gay marriage advocates do not want the people to vote on this issue. They want judges to write – not interpret the law.

7 Comments »

The URI to TrackBack this entry is:

1. Missing the point big time, Matt.

   Gay couples, at rock bottom, simply want the same legal rights that the status of "marriage" (a civil union as defined by law) affords heterosexual couples.

   The right to be see a dying loved one in the hospital, though they're not a "blood relative". The right to adopt. The right to share health care benefits. The same tax structure (tho, why they would actually want this eludes me).

   In other words, the same legal rights accorded to heterosexuals when they enter into a legal civil union (marriage).

   They already get "married" in their own ceremonies. What they don't have is the legal recognition that accompanies those ceremonies. But you know all this already, right?

   You say that Kos' weakest position is that he ignores the fact that "a lot of people, not just Republicans, are against gay marriage." According to most polls taken, that point is certainly true.

   But, as you proudly proclaim out in your own banner, being against, or for, something doesn't necessisarily make it right. (Witness slavery. Or abortion.)

   The argument you put forth here is much more of an emotional argument.

   Comment by RootieKazootie — November 30, 2004 @ 3:04 pm

2. not even close Rootie.

   Comment by Matt Margolis — November 30, 2004 @ 3:40 pm

3. this is the reason why gay marriage advocates do not want the people to vote on this issue. They want judges to write – not interpret the law.

   I'd be fascinated to know your view on Loving v. Virginia. Was that just a case of activist judges writing -- not interpreting -- the law? A majority of people were against allowing interracial marriage at the time of the court case.

   Comment by casey — November 30, 2004 @ 4:59 pm

4. I'd also be fascinated to know just what facts -- as opposed to emotions -- either side claims to use in support of their position. Seems to me they are few and far between on both sides.

   Comment by Paul — November 30, 2004 @ 5:43 pm

5. "Not even close, Rootie"?
   That's it? I thought you loved debating "the facts" with "liberals".

   Conservatives may or may not have a point about this, but you -- along with the group that tried to get the Supreme Court to hear an argument against this the first time by saying that allowing gay marriage would "fatally errode the fabric of America life" --have failed to make it in any substantial way, shape or form.

   Comment by RootieKazootie — November 30, 2004 @ 6:45 pm

6. only liberals that actually attempt to have a real debate and show any sense of ability

   Comment by Matt Margolis — November 30, 2004 @ 8:05 pm

7. Matt, are you going to answer my question or what? Was Loving v. Virginia just the work of some activist judges trying to write rather than interpret the law, or wasn't it?

   Comment by casey — December 1, 2004 @ 3:50 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

[Agitate]

ping?

[Mikey_1962]

I am from a mixed marriage too:

North Ireland and The Republic of Ireland.

[EdReform]

Ping

[Da Bilge Troll]

Black people do not have to "come out of the closet" for people to know that they are black. Gay marriage is not a civil-rights issue the way race is for that reason.

[Jibaholic]

My concern with gay marriage is the welfare of the children. Standard liberal thinking is that as long as children have two people that love them then it doesn't matter who raises the children. This is similar to the reasoning that was used with divorce and now we know that children raised by single mothers and stepparents (on average, there are exceptions) do not fare as well as children raised by their biological parents.

Now we're fighting the whole debate over again, and once again children will be the real losers.

[Noachian]

The right to adopt.

This is the part that gets to me.

If a guy whats to screw up his life, OK, but why bring kids into his weird life?

These children have no say in what family they're brought into, and unlike the homosexuals who adopt them, the children are "not consenting adults".

In effect, children adopted by homosexuals are little more than "pets" that only serve the pleasure of the homosexual parents. When these homosexual "parents" divorce, as they generally do, who takes care of the children while the now divorced "parents" are scouting out new partners?

[MadAnthony1776]

Another attempt by a small minority to dictate what the majority must do. I don't approve of homosexuality and the Bible also condemns it. So for someone to try and ram sin down my throat and tell me I have to enjoy it is wrong. I won't tolerate it. It's sin and it just burns me what they try to do. To compare it to mixed marriages is a real stretch and is a real injustice.

[atomicpossum]

The racial issue is a sham, simply because a male is a male and a female is a female. The gay marriage proponents want to change the traditional definition of marriage by making it sex neutral. Racial differences are cosmetic-- differences between the sexes are structural and sociologically fundamental.

The single truth in this debate that no one seems to point out is that marriage, as a social contract, is not between two people, it is between two people and everybody else. All the rights the individual above claims are rights not between the two married individuals, but rights of recogition required by the rest of society. This is why the 'private behavior' argument does not work-- this is demanding the recognition and accomodation, and therefore complicity, of everyone else. Any legislation or judicial edict instituting gay marriage is not to change the behavior of the couple in question, it is to change the behavior of everyone else in society.

[Agitate]

My concern with gay marriage is the welfare of the children. Standard liberal thinking is that as long as children have two people that love them then it doesn't matter who raises the children. This is similar to the reasoning that was used with divorce and now we know that children raised by single mothers and stepparents (on average, there are exceptions) do not fare as well as children raised by their biological parents.

Now we're fighting the whole debate over again, and once again children will be the real losers.

That's a concern of mine also, which is why I have a problem with civil unions. They shouldn't be able to adopt children. It's not just bad for the kids they adopt but also think of the mess when a child's two daddies want to come to school functions, etc. Your child will be exposed to it whether you want it or not, which is what they are working on anyway.

---

WAKE UP AMERICA	"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth." -Omar Ahmad, Co-founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, aka CAIR President and CEO of Silicon Expert Technologies A Palestinian who grew up in a refugee camp in Jordan.
ANTI-Cair -- Little Green Footballs -- JIHAD Watch -- DHIMMI Watch -- internet haganáh -- FaithFreedom -- Answering Islam -- Daniel Pipes -- Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) -- MEMRI TV-Videos

[Agitate]

The racial issue is a sham, simply because a male is a male and a female is a female. The gay marriage proponents want to change the traditional definition of marriage by making it sex neutral. Racial differences are cosmetic-- differences between the sexes are structural and sociologically fundamental.

The single truth in this debate that no one seems to point out is that marriage, as a social contract, is not between two people, it is between two people and everybody else. All the rights the individual above claims are rights not between the two married individuals, but rights of recogition required by the rest of society. This is why the 'private behavior' argument does not work-- this is demanding the recognition and accomodation, and therefore complicity, of everyone else. Any legislation or judicial edict instituting gay marriage is not to change the behavior of the couple in question, it is to change the behavior of everyone else in society.

Excellent points! Thanks.

---

WAKE UP AMERICA	"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth." -Omar Ahmad, Co-founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, aka CAIR President and CEO of Silicon Expert Technologies A Palestinian who grew up in a refugee camp in Jordan.
ANTI-Cair -- Little Green Footballs -- JIHAD Watch -- DHIMMI Watch -- internet haganáh -- FaithFreedom -- Answering Islam -- Daniel Pipes -- Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) -- MEMRI TV-Videos

[EdReform]

My concern with gay marriage is the welfare of the children...

Agreed. Pro-homosexual activists in "professional" medical organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics (and both the American Psychiatric and American Psychological Associations) are working overtime to normalize "homosexual parenting."

See replies 283 and 284 in Scripter's Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Revision 1.1) thread.

[EdReform]

Ping

[Servant of the 9]

the minor physical characteristics which make us look different; melanin in the skin, bone structure, hair follicle shape, etc--are all physical, observable characteristics that are immutable. Conversely, there is no gay gene!

Does that mean racially mixed marriages are worse than Gay Marriages?

So9

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping.

Interesting dicussion. Couple points: There really isn't a 50% failure rate for marriage. And by marriage, I mean of course one man and one woman. Secularists for some reason want to make everyone think that marriage is kaput, finished, on its way out. (Except for "gay" marriage. No rationality here.) The fact is, that of ALL marriages, the latest rates I've seen are the 50% end in divorce. BUT - the secret is, that out of those which end in divorce, a goodly share are - get this - RE-MARRIAGES. IOW, when someone divorces, and then remarries, and then divorces again, this is two divorces and two marriages. But for the same person. Additionally, it's also a fact that divorcees when remarrying divorce again at a higher rate.

So, the point is that out of people who marry for the first time, there is a higher success rate (meaning staying together) than 50%. I don't know exact figures; if anyone does, ping me.

It's also worth noting that every single one of the legal benefits or arrangements that homosexuals supposedly want "marriage" for, can be done without any "marriage". There are attorneys galore, paralegals, do it yourself legal forms and books. All can be done without faux same sex "marriage".

Let me and ItsOurTimeNow know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.

[little jeremiah]

Must be repeated, an EXCELLENT point brought up by our esteemed radioactive marsupial:

The single truth in this debate that no one seems to point out is that marriage, as a social contract, is not between two people, it is between two people and everybody else. All the rights the individual above claims are rights not between the two married individuals, but rights of recogition required by the rest of society. This is why the 'private behavior' argument does not work-- this is demanding the recognition and accomodation, and therefore complicity, of everyone else. Any legislation or judicial edict instituting gay marriage is not to change the behavior of the couple in question, it is to change the behavior of everyone else in society.

[EdReform]

BTTT!

[Agitate]

the minor physical characteristics which make us look different; melanin in the skin, bone structure, hair follicle shape, etc--are all physical, observable characteristics that are immutable. Conversely, there is no gay gene!

Does that mean racially mixed marriages are worse than Gay Marriages?
So9

Not at all, I'm trying to say that they are comparing unchangeable features we are born with to a chosen behavior. Saying banning mixed marriage is like banning gay marriage is not logical because being homosexual is not the same as being black, white, asian, or any combination thereof.

---

	ANTI-Cair -- Little Green Footballs -- JIHAD Watch -- DHIMMI Watch -- internet haganáh -- FaithFreedom -- Answering Islam -- Daniel Pipes -- Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) -- MEMRI TV-Videos
WAKE UP AMERICA

[JesseHousman]

I'm a German and married an Englishwoman.

My oldest daughter married a Filipino.

That is the most ignorant thing I have read this week on this site!

Homosexuals are deviant, perverts!

[Jibaholic]

The worst thing is that unless the country accellerates its rightward drift, it will take twenty or thirty years before a younger and less biased generation of scientists emerge.