Five Ways to Talk to the Left about Same-Sex Marriage (and to the Right, esp. Rush Limbaugh)

InsideCatholic ^ | July 29, 2010 | Eric Pavlat

[Antoninus]

Limbaugh is not in favor of same-sex marriages. Although he does support civil unions.

That's the default position for media conservatives who actually do support homo marriage, but like their paychecks too much to say so. Rush is a complete phony on this issue and it's very disheartening to me.

[Southack]

Marriage is entirely religious. Governments have intruded into marriage for their own gain, and they have done enormous damage in the process.

Get government out of religion. Get government out of marriage.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I'd love to think you're right, but American taxpayers--- including fiscal conservatives --- already support millions of long-term unjustifiably dependent people, and the socially liberal ones aren't going to single out gays partner/survivors as the one group they want to cut off from the public trough.

And 20-year-old survivors of 20-year-old AIDS decedents? There will be a lot more 20-year-old survivors of 50-year-old AIDS decedents. May-December gay marriages are going to be popular --- I predict --- for just that reason. (Plus the fact that rich old gay guys love to hook up with the young stuff.)

[Guyin4Os]

Rush is a complete phony on this issue and it's very disheartening to me.

Would you therefore say that any conservative that supports CUs while not supporting SS marriage is a "complete phony?"

[Mrs. Don-o]

"Marriage is entirely religious."

You keep repeating that, but repetition doesn't count as evidence, and there is plenty of counter-evidence, e.g. recognized reproductive pairs specifying sexually differentiated roles of interdependence and especially recognized paternity, in communities which have no organized religion, no creed, no commandments, no clergy; marriage in non-religious and even anti-religious societies.

Your evidence, please?

[Southack]

You are grasping at straws to pretend that marriage is non-religious.

Yes, governments have interfered in marriage, but that just means that they have intervened into religious matters.

[Antoninus]

Would you therefore say that any conservative that supports CUs while not supporting SS marriage is a "complete phony?"

Pretty much. They forfeit the claim to being a "conservative"--that much should be obvious.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I did not say one word about governments interfering in marriage. I provided evidence that natural marriage exists without church authorization and without the state. You cannot account for marriage in societies which provide no religious support for marriage --- no ceremony, no creed, no commandment, no clergy, no divine sanction --- even when such societies exist without a state.

You provided no evidence of any kind.

I'm finished. Good night.

[Southack]

Are you Catholic?

[fwdude]

Excellent article overall. But I have to disagree with:

3. Talk about Children's Rights

There are some people who often don't come up in discussions about gay marriage, but should: children.

I hear homosexual activists constantly bringing children into the conversation by saying their "families and children" deserve their right to "marry." They always demand the "right" to adopt on par with regular, married man-woman couples. They constantly want to "reach" our children in schools with the most despicable pornographic learning material imaginable. It's always about children because the survival of the homo-anarchist's world view depends on them being able to tarnish the next generation's view of perverted sexuality and bring them more around to their own world view of perversion-as-normalcy.

[fwdude]

Limbaugh is not in favor of same-sex marriages. Although he does support civil unions. This is a substantive distinction. SS Marriage makes the statement that homosexual behavior is good. CUs don’t.

This position cannot be more fatally wrong. "Civil Unions" are truly "marriage" recognition by another name, except merely the name. All jurisdictions who grant some "marriage"-like recognition to relationships that are not natural marriage eventually succumb to the incredible leverage this political wedge brings and are soon required, by court edict or force of political activism, to grant same-sex "marriage." That this obvious point is completely missed by the Libertarians in society is like failing to notice the elephant in the room.

"Civil unions" status granted most certainly does grant some form of legitimacy to homosexual relationships that has never existed before. This is the breach in the dam that can only lead to a catastrophic flood.

[Steve Van Doorn]

"We USED TO HAVE a voluntary non government system but it was fraught with abuse and fraud."

...

"Society rewards the institution no the individual Society rewards Marriabe BECAUSE it is not about the individual."

Other then throwing out the baby with the bath water I am sorry I am so out of touch with being a socialist I can not relate to your post at all.

Property rights has to do with the owner and the state. If the person in question isn't on the deed then what is the issue? That is what a Will is for. With a Will you shouldn't have to give your money to your wife.

[Steve Van Doorn]

I agree with both your posts.
Thank you

[dixiechick2000]

Well, Guy...we’ve been judged and found guilty by Antoninus. I guess we aren’t conservative.

Civil unions and same sex marriage are two entirely different unions. I oppose same sex marriage and don’t care one way or the other about civil unions.

In Oregon, we have a constitutional amendment that says marriage is between one man and one woman. However, we have civil unions, as well. Believe me...they are still pushing for same sex marriage, though, so apparently they see a difference between the two. Same sex marriage is the big prize! They won’t get it, though.

[Guyin4Os]

"Civil unions" status granted most certainly does grant some form of legitimacy to homosexual relationships that has never existed before. This is the breach in the dam that can only lead to a catastrophic flood.

I see it more as a way to keep them from being so promiscuous spreading their diseases... not a means of legitimizing their sin.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT

[fwdude]

I see it more as a way to keep [homosexuals] from being so promiscuous spreading their diseases... not a means of legitimizing their sin.

Homosexuals have never needed an excuse to be faithful to their sexual partner, and even when granted full-blown "marriage" rights, are still shown to be highly promiscuous - it's just an ingrained part of the lifestyle.

[Mrs. Don-o]

That's exactly why we have to talk about children's REAL rights, as the article stated:

According to a 2008 article in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, "Ever stronger current, rigorous social science studies have ever more firmly established that family form matters and that children receive maximum private welfare when they are raised by a married mother and father in a low-conflict marriage. . . . This evidence has troubled many in the academy who believe that all family forms are normatively equal."

In the words of the Arizona Court of Appeals, limiting marriage to heterosexuals "rationally furthers a legitimate state interest," that of protecting the development of the future adults of the state.

[kearnyirish2]

I don’t think they’ll target them out of malice, but more so because they engage in behaviour that easily results in this disease. When you consider the burdens already placed on Social Security, this is just one more that may be avoided. This point is a major reason why all 50 states legalizing it won’t end the fight (since Social Security is a federal program); it is all about money.

[Antoninus]

Well, Guy...we’ve been judged and found guilty by Antoninus. I guess we aren’t conservative.

Uh, no one who believes that a sexual relationship between two men can be the moral or legal equivalent of husband and wife can be called "conservative." It's a mockery of the very meaning of the word.