Posted on 10/30/2012 7:35:06 AM PDT by Kaslin
Next week voters in Maine, Maryland and Washington will vote on whether to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples.
Given that there are good people on both sides of this issue, how are we to explain their opposing views?
The primary explanation is this: Proponents and opponents ask two different questions.
Proponents of same-sex marriage ask: Is keeping the definition of marriage as man-woman fair to gays? Opponents of same-sex marriage ask: Is same-sex marriage good for society?
Few on either side honestly address the question of the other side. Opponents of same-sex marriage rarely acknowledge how unfair the age-old man-woman definition is to gay couples. And proponents rarely, if ever, acknowledge that this unprecedented redefinition of marriage may not be good for society.
That is why proponents have it much easier. All they need to do is to focus the public's attention on individual gay people, show wonderful gay individuals who love each other, and ask the American public: Is it fair to continue to deprive these people of the right to marry one another?
When added to Americans' aversion to discrimination, to the elevation of compassion to perhaps the highest national value, and to the equating of opposition to same-sex marriage with opposition to interracial marriage, it is no wonder that many Americans have been persuaded that opposition to same-sex marriage is hateful, backwards and the moral equivalent of racism.
Is there any argument that can compete with the emotionally compelling fairness argument?
The answer is that one can -- namely, the answer to the second question, Is it good for society?
Before answering that question, however, it is necessary to respond to the charge that opposition to same-sex marriage is morally equivalent to opposition to interracial marriage and, therefore, the moral equivalent of racism.
There are two responses:
First, this charge is predicated on the profoundly false premise that race and sex (or "gender" as it is now referred to) are analogous.
They are not.
Opponents of same sex 'marriage' are ALSO unfair to men who want to marry their sisters - fathers who want to marry their daughters, men who want to marry their goats, women who want to marry their fathers, men who want to marry 20 women, women who want to marry 500 illegals and get a diamond ring from each of them...
The list is almost endless - those friggin conservative haters do NOT understand the 'luv' of a man for his horse...and pig and goat... or the guy who says ever since he was a young child he knew he wanted to be married to many many women... and have them all added to his company's health insurance plan.
Marriage bump...
Given that they’re not deluded or coerced, I say an unqualified “no.”
Exactly correct. By voting for perversion a person establishes that they are not good.
I’m not sure what it is FRiend, but I think you’ve got a great screen name...
But I can assure you that Dennis Prager would say that a "good" person can.
I was thinking the same about yours!
The thing that amazes me though is I don't remember you yet you've been here longer than I have (and not many have)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.