Skip to comments.Gay Marriage and Guilt by Association (How to deflect the "homophobe" charge)
Posted on 04/01/2013 7:22:41 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
People who worry about the effects of "undefining" marriage to satisfy the LGBT movement must spend a little time thinking about how to deal with the question below: "How dare you conspire with homophobes?"
The sentence above is thrown at me quite often. Usually it comes from people who want gay marriage legalized but who cannot respond to my complex arguments in favor of civil unions and against gay marriage. (Many of these arguments are available here.)
My arguments address (1) the long-term impact of same-sex parenting on children and (2) the global impact of replacing male-female lovemaking with commercial contracts based on surrogacy, insemination, and adoption on demand.
Numbers 1 and 2 above are tough issues to dismiss glibly or paper over with platitudes. So the most effective retort against me is "how dare you conspire with homophobes?," as if the social context of the argument is all that counts, and the content of the debate doesn't matter.
Over the last three weeks, I've gotten slammed with guilt-by-association arguments.
My crime is not that I have ever voiced anything homophobic, because I haven't, but rather that I am chummy with people in the National Organization for Marriage, delivered a talk to a French group whose president was once accused of denying the French homosexual Holocaust, spoke at the French "manif pour tous" against homosexual marriage and adoption, and just did an interview with Sandy Rios of the American Family Association about same-sex marriage.
I have been tempted, as so many of us have, to fall into the guilt-by-association game. Then one starts apologizing for allies or else "distancing" from sources of support. It is important not to react to guilt-by-association attacks in this way.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Now the gays are not satisfied with just a state-regulated civil union at the courthouse, they want to force God to sanction their union.
Marriage, as designed by God, is a covenant which involves God bestowing blesses on the union of a man and a woman.
God is in no way able to nor will he "bless" a homosexual union.
Trying to force God into a covenant and trying to force Him to be a witness leads to only one thing - curses upon the heads of those who think they can force God's Hand.
Who do these people think they are that they would be able to withstand His righteous anger?
Gays have no argument it ‘s unecexceptable.
RE: I find same-sex marriage and civil unions to be the same. Both evil and perverted.
Their counter would be this — Who are you and I to impose our concept of morality on others?
“Would it be ‘wrong’ to say that gay ‘marriage’ shouldn’t be recognized?”
So, if it’s “wrong”, by what standard?
Nothing is stopping from gays who are committed to their relationships to establish their own “family”.
Want your “spouse” to inherit your wealth? What law is stopping them now?
Want to adopt children or have children by surrogate? What law is stopping them now?
Want benefits for your spouse? Apple, IBM. Microsoft, Amazon, Disney, etc, all provide same sex benefits already.
But all of these are not enough, they want ACCEPTANCE.
And herein lies the problem -— It is a clash of moralities.
They want to use the power of the law ( i.e. COERCION ) to FORCE devout and religious people ( i.e., citizens who have deeply held moralities and beliefs ) to RECOGNIZE their relationship and ACCEPT IT ( contrary to their beliefs ).
say you are a religious institution (a Catholic or Evangelical hospital or a small business like Hobby Lobby or Chick Fil-A), will you be required BY LAW ( and by required, I mean FORCED under threat of jail of fine ) to provide same sex benefits against your deeply held religious beliefs?
If so, then gays are FORCING THEIR MORALITY on others.
If there were no coercion on others to accept their beliefs, they can marry all they want, just don’t expect religious people to accept this. You go your way, we go ours.
But that is not what they want. Hence, the cultural battle lines have to be drawn.
We have no choice, we are being forced to fight this battle.
Acceptance is not the end...
Supremacy. That’s the goal.
RE: So, if its wrong, by what standard?
By the standard of FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FREEDOM OF RELIGION.
You don’t force your gay religion on mine and I don’t force my Christian religion on yours.
In other words, If I am a christian Business or Institution, don’t use the force of law to COERCE me to subsidize your lifestyle (i.e. benefits for your “spouse” ). If you don’t like my business, you don’t have to patronize it or work for it.
I think you misunderstood.
My post was challenging the left when they claim the moral superiority of non-judgementalism.
If being non-judgemental is morally superior to being judgemental, then there must be some standard by which to say one is right and the other wrong, and wouldn’t that be “judgemental”?
I understand your point.
However, they are MOST DEFINITELY BEING JUDGMENTAL.
The moment you say someone or some law OUGHT to be implemented, you are implying ( and judging ) an existing state of things as wrong.
In other words, they are saying that religious people ( and their religious tenets ) are BIGOTED.
How’s that not in and of itself judgmentalism?
You really CANNOT escape judging as long as you hold to certain beliefs.
***(How to deflect the “homophobe” charge)***
Not “homophobe”, a fear of homos.
Homomisia! A disgust of homos, like Islamomisia, a disgust of Islamics.
Why homos are disgusting...
And this. Scroll down to the chart.
I read the police report on this years ago. When the police found Dirkhising, he had been tied down, had his underwear stuffed in his mouth, and had a cucumber pushed into his rectum.
What I find interesting that Civil Unions actually grant special rights to non biological same sex partners over children. Where as a same sex step father who decides to be gay and gets a divorce would generally be seen to have no standing where the biological children of the mother are concerned civil unions are changing this and in several cases forcing unsupervised visitation something that would be unheard of even a decade ago and I think its a bad development. Its creating a whole new odious form of family law.
Obamanation Counterculture File.
The road runs in both directions.
And if you REALLY want to know how perverse gays are google “homo scat”. This is definitely not safe for work or even FR. Just look at the google synopsis and don’t go to the web page. If you do....
HAVE A BARF BAG HANDY!
Just think! These are some of the people who handle your food at restaurants!
A phobia is an irrational fear. Fear of those whose "holy" book tells them to convert you by the sword, subjugate or kill you is fully rational. New word: Islamophobomisia.
The whole allegation of homophobia is idiotic. That we worry about being called one is also idiotic. The way I deal with it is point out that I don’t hate gays even though I disagree with both homosexuality and gay marriage and offer personal stories of my friendships etc as well as engage in conversation rather than allowing myself to get baited into an angry defense of myself on an emotional level. Its not bigotry or homophobia to believe that gays can live how they like but they can’t redefine marriage or the culture for everyone and that’s the level I try to keep it at. If the conversation degenerates then I simply wish them a nice day or offer a non emotional rebuttal where appropriate. If I need to put them on defense I ask them why they want to silence and make allegations of bigotry and homophobia at someone who just politely disagrees with them? I ask them why they are so angry and why they just can’t live and let live and enjoy their private lives privately like most mature adults.
Because the word “Marriage” has a cultural meaning and a dictionary definition.
Call it the hook up or whatever but, this about changing culture and obfuscating words.
Until the state again REPUDIATES this societal poison, it will never get well.
Well Their both pointless, but at least with “Civil Unions” you can avoid ether endorsing sodomy or officially redefining marriage into a pointless an dead-end institution.
In the end however culture has already redefined marriage back in the 1960 into such an increasingly pointless institution by permitting easy diverse and centering the union around parental feelings rather than child(family) raising.
If you ask me we would be better off to let the loved based misconception of marriage to collapse under its own weight. In the mean time we should in the context of our own families & communities recreate and insist upon the original version. Perhaps under a slightly altered name to distinguished it from the popular misnomer.
“Holy marriage” perhaps...?
To defend and advance this institution however we must instill in our children and grandchildren the reasons behind holy marriage as being for the proper and historically proven system of raising children.
Until the state again REPUDIATES this societal poison, it will never get well.”
I don’t think we have the power to make the state do such a thing. The culture of the 1960’s has created a toxic popular misnomer regarding the idea of marriage. One that is by now so pervasive we may have to start again to save the current and what is left of the proceeding generation.
I do not believe we can uses the state towards that end. Instead we should do what we can to remove the word marriage from the States vocabulary and instead dumb down the union to a simple contract that can be seen as nothing more than a tool for those that are married.
No longer can the state been seeing as being able to make or break marriages. At least not our reintroduced institution.