Where's the birth certificate

Free and Strong America

Friday, January 7, 2011

On Gay Marriage

One of the followers (and once-in-a-while commenter) on this blog, Ben-Peter Terpstra, wrote an interesting article that appeared recently in The Daily Caller. His story gives account of the plight of gays who are opposed to gay marriage in getting their viewpoint heard through the cacophany of noise coming from the mainstream media which only allows Good Comrades who tow the part line of 'Gay Marriage Good-Opposition Bad, Bigoted and Mean-Spirited'' to express themselves openly and freely, or as Terpstra so eloquently puts it... "is Katie Couric ready to hear politically-direct voices opposed to same-sex marriage? Is Oprah willing to open her heart and therefore her ears to marginalized trans-people and their journeys? Or does “tolerance” mean ignoring critical-thinking minority voices?".

Terpstra's article focuses on a new book out titled Against Equality: Queer Critiques of Gay Marriage and some of the arguments raised by gays who really don't care for gay marriage are as follows..

"Kate Bornstein writes.."When lesbian and gay community leaders whip up the community to fight for the right to marry, it’s a further expression of America’s institutionalized greed in that it benefits only its demographic constituency,” argues the passionate activist. “There’s no reaching out beyond sexuality and gender expression to benefit people who aren’t just like us, and honestly… that is so 20th Century identity politics."

Kenyon Farrow wonders if Gay Marraige is anti-black..."I, as a black gay man, do not support this push for same-sex marriage,” he asserts. “Although I don’t claim to represent all black gay people, I do believe that the manner in which this campaign has been handled has put black people in the middle of essentially two white groups of people, who are trying to manipulate us one way or the other.”

One of the better quotes comes from Yasmin Nair who muses... "I don’t get why a community of people who have historically been f….d over by their families and the state now consists of people who want those exact same institutions to validate their existence."

All of this is in addition to a point raised by our resident gay conservative, Coco Loco who writes, (and I wholeheartedly agree)..."since it [gay marraige] is symbolic, one must consider the symbolic effect. If there is no word, in language, to delineate a same-sex from an opposite-sex couple, then why have words to delineate anything that's different? Why not give everyone who goes to school after college an MD, whether they were getting a JD, a PhD, or an MFA? Why not call everyone Reverend? Why not give me twenty bucks and a gold ribbon for being gay? I want it. I'm asking you for it. I am willing to blockade your office building if I can't have it."

The shortsightedness in the attitude of those in favor of gay marrage is reminiscent of a recent Ann coulter article in which she asks... "Why do we have immigration laws? What's with these borders? Why do we have the institution of marriage, anyway? What do we need standardized tests for? Hey, I like Keith Richards – why not make heroin legal? Let's take a sledgehammer to all these load-bearing walls [of civilization] and just see what happens!"

I think we could all agree that a rational discussion is in order before sweeping changes in a society are made with the stroke of a pen. That discussion is not well served by such empty arguments as playing the homophobe or bigot card just because there is disagreement over the matter. If one were to define bigotry as either "stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own" or as "the expression of hatred or aggression towards those who are different", it's quite clear who is the complete bigot in this discussion. It's the one who exhibits such complete intolerance to an opinion different than their own that their actions include an accusation of such an extremely negative stereotype like homophobia or bigotry in order to stifle rational discussion on the topic simply because someone doesn't agree with them.

If someone wished to show gay marriage to be such a great thing, they should start by negating the above objections raised by gays themselves and then address the void of arguments that are just brimming with such good reasons to redefine a term upon which much of Western civilization was built.


From Gays Against Gay Marriage, "I’d like at least all heterosexuals, if not their loudmouth gay friends, to shut the hell up on the matter. It does not impress me that you have compassion for gay people; I simply do not think you are a mouthbreathing dingbat for finding anything at all wrong with homosexual behavior. That’s the expected default, get it? Now stop trying to force your oppressive, frilly, and boring traditional institutions meant to ensure monogamy on my hot, promiscuous, anonymous gay sex."



"With regard to "gay civil rights," what makes them problematic is that there is an inherent clash with religion and the natural order. For example, "gay marriage" warps the very understanding of what marriage is in a way that polygamy cannot since marriage has always been a union between man and woman. This is a universal fact about marriage, as no civilization has defined marriage as simply a union between [nn>1] people. There are a number of sensible homosexuals who have realized that this is a problem, but unfortunately, they're politically irrelevant." Mike, from Code Monkey Ramblings

.








4 comments:

The Maryland Crustacean said...

Here is one area where I am starting to consider a libertarian point of view; not that I approve of gay marriage, but because I am starting to question why the government should be in the marriage business in the first place: I touched on this in a post I wrote a couple years ago entitled Marriage, Abortion and Gays, Oh My!

In one of my subpoints, I stated:

The sacredness of marriage was and is reflected by its celebration as a religious sacrament. The history of government’s role in the institution is probably two fold: 1) it goes back to times and societies when the line between church and state was blurred, for better or for worse (usually worse); 2) governments and societies have recognized their compelling interest in promoting and preserving marriage as a means of fostering healthy family units as part of a well ordered society. It also protected women and children from abandonment.

The state’s compelling interest in preserving marriage and the family used to be reflected in how difficult it once was to obtain a divorce. Before the advent of “no-fault” divorce laws, there had to be a compelling reason to justify a divorce. If the sanctity of marriage vows was not sufficient to keep struggling couples from parting ways, the extra layers of social opprobrium and legal impediments against an easy divorce often preserved the union. Now those safety nets are largely non-existent, and marriage from a governmental point of view has been reduced to nothing more than a contract, similar to a limited partnership or an S-corporation, which is easily dissolved upon request of one or both parties. How sad!

It is this sad state of affairs that makes it difficult to argue against gay marriage.

GentleSkeptic said...

I am quietly thrilled to see that, more than two weeks after the OP, the ONLY comment here is from someone beginning to reconsider his opposition to SSM.

JD Curtis said...

Whereas I find it quite interesting that the Troll Patrol didn't wish to even provide any sort of counter-argument to any of the points raised by gays opposed to gay marraige.

That might require actual thought which is much too hard for them and besides, it's so much more fun to prance about spouting off the word "bigot" at others without backing it up in the slightest.

GentleSkeptic said...

OR it's because the views you present as representative of "gays opposed to gay marriage" represent such a tiny minority within a small minority that they're really not worth responding to. One might even say "politically irrelevant." Also, you're trolling from 2-year old posts on blogs less trafficked than your own.