Three Views on Same Sex "Marriage"

Townhall ^ | 5-21-12 | Mike Adams

[ReformationFan]

A lot of cultural commentators are confused these days. They believe that people’s views on same sex marriage are solely a reflection of their religious beliefs. Nothing could be further from the truth. Actually, some things could be further from the truth – like saying that Al Sharpton has integrity or that Dan Savage has class. But you get the point. The same sex marriage debate is about politics. To call it a religious debate is to miss the point entirely. Your stance on same sex marriage should vary depending on whether you consider yourself to be a conservative, a liberal, or a libertarian.

For conservatives, the issue is pretty simple. The institution of marriage predates any existing government or nation. So no government has a right to redefine marriage. But it is okay for the government to become entangled with marriage towards the end of promoting marriage. The institution is good. It tames men. It protects women. It is good for children. Therefore, it is worth promoting.

Conservatives view efforts to redefine marriage as philosophically unacceptable. That government should recognize an institution in one move and then redefine it in another is an unacceptable encroachment on a religious institution. Recognize yes, redefine no. It is not their religion that leads them to this conclusion. It is their politics. It is also common sense. Conservatives rightly scoff at the notion of calling same sex unions “marriage” just as they scoff at the idea of calling three-sided objects rectangular.

Conservatives are unimpressed with overly simplistic appeals to freedom. When evaluating the “freedom to marry” they refuse to stop at the question “Is it free?” They also ask the question “Is it good?” Same sex marriage does not tame men, it does not protect women,

[Venturer]

I can easily give my views on same sex relationships.

With all the beautiful women around, looking good, it takes a sick SOB to want another mans butt.

It has nothing to do with religion and all to do with being a man, instead of a fairy.

[TheBigIf]

A. Conservative view -

A belief that we all have an equal right to representation on how issues of behavior are dealt with in the public sphere. There is no right to force others to accept your behavior and the role of government is to protect our rights. The role of government is not to create phony rights.

Knowledge that homosexuality is a form of behavior and not an inborn state of being. There is no right to force others to accept this type of behavior.

A strong conviction that no one should deprive a person of his right to representation within his community of how behaviors are dealt with.

A knowledge that marriage is only possible between a man and a woman.

Knowledge that homosexuality is a corruption of natural human sexuality and that all people can be corrupted, especially children. Knowledge also that homosexuality tends to promote other corruptive behaviors as well and that pedophelia is much more prevelant among people corrupted by homosexuality. A knowledge also that homosexuality promotes the spread of disease as well.

Bottom line is that a conseervative believes thaat we have a right and a duty to use our right to representation to protect our children and our communities from perverse and corruptive influences. Homosexuality is a danger to our children and tto our communities. Thus is must be deterred.

B. Libertarian view -

A belief that a ‘right to representation’ is a form of tyranny and that unless a behavior is proven to directly pose harm to others you have no right to make a law against such behavior. (Libertarians rarely define how they determine what causes harm and what does not. It is always just based upon the opinion of any given libertarian as to what causes harm and what does not. This entire modern premise of libertarianism seems to be based upon the Wiccan Rede and not at all on the Constitution or on the Founders. Modern libertarianism seems to be more based upon the teachings of Aliester Crowley who called himself the Beast.)

Also a belief that every individual has a ‘right to association’ and no one has to accept any type of behavior at all. Businesses are free to ban people based upon their homosexual behavior or any behavior at all. Individuals as well can not be forced in any way to accept homosexuality in any way at all. (Most so-called libertarians seem to not understand this aspect of libertarianism and seem to march lockstep with the progressives on forcing others to embrace homosexuality as being good and natural.)

C. Progressive (fascist) view-

A belief that homosexuality is a new race of people and as such must be treated equally to the other race of people called heterosexuals.

Anyone who does not agree must be punished.

[Agamemnon]

The institution of marriage predates any existing government or nation.

The family is the predicate foundation of government.

Civil government in Western Democratic-Republican Society, informed as were our Founders by Judeo-Christian values derives its power from the governed.

Implicit with that understanding is that the populace itself is self-governed already and is hence civilly governable.

If families cannot govern themselves, they will be governed by tyrants. True, some families themselves are tyrannies, though the vast majority of them are not.

Family self-governance competes with civil government: civil government is effective only insofar as it can be effective in governing families that cannot themselves be self-governing. Civil government too often over reaches under the blanket assumption that families are not self-governing.

In fact civil government too often thinks that the family is ill-equipped to govern themselves and requires the gloved fist.

So on the basis of a few bad examples of family governance the vast majority suffer as civil government interposes itself into every family situation regardless of the actual need for civil intervention.

Morality must come from within society's foundational structure, its first estate -- the family -- or a "morality" foreign to Judeo-Christianity will impose itself upon the governed and will likely be inclined to do so tyrannically, unconstrained by Judeo-Christian values.

FReegards!

[TheBigIf]

While of course morality must come from within the family that does not though release you from the moral responsibility of protecting your family within the community. The purpose of our ‘right to representation’ is to protect our family (and extended family) by deterring harmful and corruptive influences within our community. Homosexuality is very harmful to the community and to children in that it promotes disease, other corruptive behaviors, and has no positive value at all.

So yes you are correct that governance at the family level is crucial and morality must start there but you seem to ignore the responsibility we have to use our right to representation to protect our family within our community.

[Neoliberalnot]

I can remember a time when people who wanted to marry close cousins of the opposite sex were called white trash—we called them sick and made fun of them. Now, a lower class of white trash wants to marry other same-sex perverts, and we call them gay and are expected to honor them. Ask yourself, which is the sicker, trashier, and lower.

[Albion Wilde]

Mike Adams is maturing into a very serious commentator. Not that I don’t enjoy his sarcastic humor about political correctness — I do. But when he gets serious, he soars. Well reasoned, Mike.

[Agamemnon]

While of course morality must come from within the family that does not though release you from the moral responsibility of protecting your family within the community.

And while that of course is true, that wasn't the point of my narrative. I was speaking of the primacy of the 1st estate itself, and only that.

So yes you are correct that governance at the family level is crucial and morality must start there but you seem to ignore the responsibility we have to use our right to representation to protect our family within our community.

You're welcome to make that the point of your commentary. While certainly not wrong, the point which you wish to make was not the point of my commentary.

Since my point was not your point, I cannot agree that I "ignored" anything per se. I just did not choose to extrapolate it to the place that you did in your commentary.

Perhaps you can recognize the difference.

FReegards!

[TheBigIf]

Fair enough. Yes I can recognize the difference. Sorry for taking liberty by implying you were ignoring something. Just a bad choice of words on my part.

[ReformationFan]

Agreed. I remember when he satirized the United Methodist Church’s liberalization on sex with the term “Open Minds, Open Hearts, Open Legs” though liberal Methodists might not take offense at that.

[ReformationFan]

“B. Libertarian view -

“Also a belief that every individual has a ‘right to association’ and no one has to accept any type of behavior at all. Businesses are free to ban people based upon their homosexual behavior or any behavior at all. Individuals as well can not be forced in any way to accept homosexuality in any way at all. (Most so-called libertarians seem to not understand this aspect of libertarianism and seem to march lockstep with the progressives on forcing others to embrace homosexuality as being good and natural.)”

Indeed. Were are the true libertarians concerning this issue?

“C. Progressive (fascist) view-

“A belief that homosexuality is a new race of people and as such must be treated equally to the other race of people called heterosexuals.

“Anyone who does not agree must be punished.”

So much for the so-called “live and let live” policy, eh?

[Albion Wilde]

Mega lols! I’ll have to look that one up!

I left the Methodist church after five generations over that complete asinine nonsense and the tenth lesbian, gay or gay-promoting pastor in a row. Shook the dust from my heels.

[ReformationFan]

Here it is:

http://townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/2007/01/31/open_hearts,_open_minds,_and_open_legs/print

[TurboZamboni]

Real Federalism and the 10th Amendment are the “live and let live” method.

Statists want all-powerful,top-down government:one-size-fits-all law(s) for everyone.

[TheOldLady]

Click the Cute Chicks

Are You A Chick Magnet?
Become One by Supporting Free Republic

Please Donate Monthly
Sponsors will contribute $10 for each new monthly sign-up!
FReeper RonC will donate $25 for each new Dollar-A-Day Club member!

[murdoog]

Conservatives are unimpressed with overly simplistic appeals to freedom. When evaluating the “freedom to marry” they refuse to stop at the question “Is it free?” They also ask the question “Is it good?”

I take a slightly different approach. I just don't see gay marriage as a liberty issue at all. Gays are already free to live together and do whatever they want in the privacy of their bedroom.

Marriage adds a state endorsement of this, as well as a requirement that others recognize their union as a marriage.

[ReformationFan]

“Marriage adds a state endorsement of this, as well as a requirement that others recognize their union as a marriage.”

Exactly. They are fighting for their “right” to hurt and persecute the Christian church.