Gay Marriage is a Socialist experiment

Morse Code ^ | June 15, 2007 | Chuck Morse

[Chuckmorse]

Socialists have historically understood that in order to implement total government, which is what socialism is, institutions that foster freedom and individual independence would have to be weakened. Total government is, after all, against human nature, which is inclined toward individual rights, private ownership, belief in a divine creator, and the sovereignty of nation-states designed to preserve, protect, and defend those natural rights.

Besides belief in God, private property, and private industry, the basic family unit is a bulwark of freedom and, therefore, an obstacle to socialism. Developed over millennia, conventional marriage has been universally respected as an essential institution. Marriage represents the most formidable obstacle to government control.

Hence, the totalitarian minded socialist figured out how to undermine marriage. Overt as well as subtle attempts have been undertaken over centuries to undermine marriage and gay marriage is only the most recent effort. Since two men or two women cannot actually be married, legal recognition of gay marriage should be viewed as a manufactured straw dog invented to weaken and ultimately destroy the natural and freedom fostering institution of marriage. As recently as seven years ago, gay marriage was unheard of.

The pro gay marriage advocates sold the idea of state recognized gay marriage to the general public by arguing that gay couples were being deprived of certain marriage benefits such as inheritance rights, health insurance, and hospital visits. Yet many of these issues have been rightfully resolved by private sector social pressure on business and by could be resolved by state legislation. State recognition of gay marriage actually discriminates against other alternative families who could also argue that they should receive these benefits. The states, and the private sector, do not have to recognize a gay relationship in order to provide benefits that should, at any rate, be made available to alternative families especially when minor dependents are involved.

Committed relationships for homosexuals should be encouraged and these relationships have generally not viewed as controversial. Especially gay men are well served to find a life partner and, therefore, reduce promiscuous behavior which increase exposure to disease and violence. A stable gay relationship, with many of the trappings of traditional marriage, is a conservative development, which should be encouraged for homosexuals. The controversy is not over the committed relationship between homosexuals but rather with the insistence that the relationship be turned into a state recognized marriage.

Legal gay marriage will mean that the gay marriage will be legally equal to conventional marriage. This opens the door to conflict with people and organized religions that consider homosexual activity to be immoral. Neither side in this thorny debate should have a right to impose its belief on the other by using the force of law. Our society should encourage tolerance of differences and respect for opposing views without resorting to laws that would banish the opposition. Legally recognized gay marriage will lead to government outlawing opinion as has already happened in Canada. The trend is already underway as “hate crime” legislation is being debated in Congress.

There was no way gay marriage would lose in Massachusetts, which is why there will never be a vote on the issue. Now that gay marriage will be legal in Massachusetts, it will be interesting to see how swiftly state schools move toward teaching young people about homosexuality in the name of tolerance, how rapidly political crimes are established in the name of safety, and how soon the Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by President Clinton, which allowed the respective states to craft their own marriage legislation, is challenged. Now that it’s legal in Massachusetts, gay marriage will not likely to fade into the distance, which is what would likely happen if left to its own devices. Instead, we can expect to see more agitation. This should be as much proof as is needed to conclude that the issue is no actually gay marriage but, rather, a socialist agenda.

[ExcursionGuy84]

TO Mr. Chuck Morse... We the Sound-minded People of the United States don’t need any Socialism and We don’t need or want Homosexuality, even Homosexual Marriage.

[Uri’el-2012]

Marxists use anarchism as a means to their end.

Marxists seek to seize total power.

[alloysteel]

Not an experiment.

Part of a many-pronged strategy to continuously question legal authority, and make the legal system so bound up, that no serious challenge can be dealt with. All these frivolous issues keep the attention of almost everybody diverted from the REAL problems that face all of us collectively.

[Uncle Miltie]

Leftists believe in the perfectibility of man.

Conservatives believe in the fallen nature of man.

Gay Marriage is an experiment Leftists find reasonable, as if the nature of man established in every society in the history of the world can be overcome by changing enough peoples’ minds.

Gay Marriage is an overthrow of foundational principles of civilization for Conservatives, which we viscerally expect to be destructive because it contradicts human’s general nature.

Marriage is about children, and society approves of Marriage of one man and one woman as the optimal functional unit for raising children. No other construct has ever proven more successful. Regardless of equality arguments for the adults involved, the child is the point.

Are you willing to bet generations of children on alternative marriage models?

Leftists say “Yes.” Conservatives say “No.”

[The Pack Knight]

Socialists have historically understood that in order to implement total government, which is what socialism is, institutions that foster freedom and individual independence would have to be weakened.

I'll let others debate the rest of the article, but the first paragraph is something I've been saying for some time. By my view, libertarians and social conservatives should be natural allies.

For libertarians who dismiss the role of church and family in society, the destruction of those institutions inevitably leaves a vacuum for the state to fill. The breakdown of the family as an organizing institution in society is a major reason for the size and intrusiveness of the state today. Roles that were once the province of families have now been assumed by the state. The same can be said of the church, particularly when you look at charity and welfare.

Likewise, social conservatives who would see the state instill more moral regulation in society in order to instill "family values" should know that the state is utterly incapable of instilling family values. Only families can do that. Where the state is involved, only state values are promoted. When the state is relied upon to strengthen families and promote religion, families and religion are instead weakened and made subservient to the state.

Limited government depends on traditional values and institutions, and traditional values and institutions require limited government. Libertarianism and social conservatism should not exist in dichotomy.

< / tangental rant>

[HaveHadEnough]

Are you willing to bet generations of children on alternative marriage models?

I totally agree that a stable home with married parents is the best way to raise children.

I just don't see how letting other people who generally do not have kids get married ruins it for married people and their children.

[Greg F]

Anybody know this quote from Margaret Thatcher? I couldn’t find it but paraphrased she said something like “Whenever I am swayed by the left in an argument I examine the proposal and see that it ultimately is designed to increase dependence and reduce the self-reliance of the individual.” That’s nowhere near the actual words, but the idea is a very good one. Cuts through the B.S. very well in most cases.

[bannie]

Another nail in society’s coffin.

[Madam Theophilus]

If anyone would like historical documentation of the ideas expressed in this article I would strongly recommend the book by E. Michael Jones, LIBIDO DOMINANDI: Sexual Liberation and Political Control.

[massgopguy]

WRKO has a Liberal host on today who is arguing that the Church is violating Separation of Church and State by getting involved in the Marriage argument. It’s been a Sacrament for almost 2,000 years! The State is usurping Doctrine from the church. This is how the gays won. They got the State to buy into the notion that Marriage is between a Tax Levying Entity and its Subjects.

[nathanbedford]

You boys might want to cast your eyes on this here:

http://www.newtotalitarians.com/PsychicIronCagePartII.html

[massgopguy]

What were the following things?

Milk Price Fixing
The Numbers Racket
Booze distribution

They were all rackets once run by organized crime

Now what are they?

The New England Dairy Council
The Lottery
Licensed Liquor Establishments

The Government took them over by changing the meaning of the words.

Now they are taking Marriage from the Church.

[hunter112]

I just don't see how letting other people who generally do not have kids get married ruins it for married people and their children.

I'm agreed. How does the availability of a sanctioned couples relationship (call it domestic partnership, civil union, or gay marriage, it's all pretty much the same thing) tempt heterosexual young people to not find each other attractive, marry each other, and then procreate?

I can understand where legalizing marijuana might make it acceptable to try it, but what law changes would make a straight guy find another guy sexually attractive?

[onedoug]

Gay Marriage is a Socialist experiment

Too kind.

[hunter112]

Now they are taking Marriage from the Church.

Ever since the government started registering marriages, then handing out benefits based on it, the church has had it taken away.

[Campion]

How does the availability of a sanctioned couples relationship (call it domestic partnership, civil union, or gay marriage, it's all pretty much the same thing) tempt heterosexual young people to not find each other attractive, marry each other, and then procreate?

Empirically, look at what has happened in Europe, where homosexual marriage has been closely followed by a drastic decline in the heterosexual marriage rate.

[HaveHadEnough]

Empirically, look at what has happened in Europe, where homosexual marriage has been closely followed by a drastic decline in the heterosexual marriage rate.

Have marriage rates gone down even in those states that have not legalized gay marriage? Has the marriage rate gone down in the US, when gay marriage has not been legal?

[hunter112]

As anybody knows, correlation does not imply causation. In both the US and Europe, long before even Vermont civil unions, marriage has been disintegrating. I'm much more inclined to blame it on feminism, birth control, easy divorce laws, welfare, and the media, than to attribute a decline in heterosexual marriage rate to the availability of homosexual marriage.

Do you really think that Europeans who married a same-sex partner would have instead married an opposite sex partner, if the option were not available? I'd like to think that closeted homosexuals would NOT inflict themselves on an innocent straight person in an effort to 'treat' themselves. The story of Dina Matos McGreevey should NOT be relived by anybody else.

[gcruse]

You are wasting your pixels. This poster just sprays his grafitti and moves on to the next pillar. He can’t be bothered responding to comments.