I must admit that I was a bit taken aback by this paragraph. I don't recall ever reading such silliness being offered up as serious commentary in my entire life. I could go on all day but I'll try to keep this brief.
The Knights of Columbus are against gay marraige
Big deal. How is that in any way "immoral"? Are they not allowed to have an opinion on the matter? Are only those opinions that differ from yours the "immoral" ones? After all, the number one reason that homosexuals seek to leave the homosexual lifestyle is to escape emotional pain. Would Mr. Vacula advocate that those wishing to leave such a lifestyle be forced to promote it by lobbying for gay marriage which runs counter to their convictions? Chuck Colsen recently wrote "not only is standing for traditional marriage verboten, so is helping people who no longer want to live a homosexual lifestyle. What’s their rallying cry now? “Once you’re gay, we’ll make you stay”? Don't want to be labeled as immoral now, do you?
Furthermore, is it immoral to point out how destructive homosexuality is to the human body or to mention to them that "homosexual people are at a substantially higher risk for some forms of emotional problems, including suicidality, major depression, and anxiety disorder"? This doesnt have to be done in a holier-than-thou, condescending sort of way but out of love and friendship. I dare say that if the heroin-user's lobby had better PR, than Mr. Vacula would probably support them as well.
Of course, all of this is before we get input from gays who do not want gay marraige. I highly doubt one could play the "immoral" card against them.
One blogger mentioned that "numerous other societies and countries accept it (gay marraige) Belgium, Canada, Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, and Spain, etc." Yet in Norway where gay marraige has been legal for some time now, nearly a quarter of homosexuals have attempted suicide. Can we expect such numbers here in the US as well? As one writer put it, "It would appear highly unreasonable to attempt to blame either James Dobson or intolerant Southern Baptists for the self-destructive actions of young gay atheist Norwegians."
Insofar as abortion is concerned, I'm going to assume that Mr. Vacula is against the killing of a viable infant in the very last stages of pregnancy. If that's the case, then he is pro-life too. Only to a different degree.
EDIT: While perusing some comments, I came across this one by ATVLC that had to be one of the more stupid entries ever made in relation to the KKK being conservative.
"The Democratic Party used to be the conservative party and the Republicans the progressives. (Mostly). This ended with "The Southern Strategy"
If they only knew what they were talking about, Republicans were only following the lead of Democrats who had formulated their own Southern Manifesto a couple of years earlier. All of this is before we get into Senator Robert Byrd's (D-WV) paltry lifetime rating of barely 30 from the American Conservative Union, or why such a fine, big-government liberal like FDR appointed a Klansman to the Supreme Court (Hugo Black, D-AL), or why he opted for another former member of the Klan as his vice president, Harry Truman. Heck, Klan members continue to run for office as Democrats, even to this day.
8 comments:
I, in no way in this post, say that the Knights of Columbus are equivalent to the KKK like you suggest in the title of this article. The main discussion in my post regards whether or not one should join or support groups that are ideologically opposed to your aims. I offer the KKK as a starting point, a group that I oppose and and against my aims.
I write, " Above, I used the KKK as an example (and presumably local KKK chapters just do exist to socialize and not do anything), but these arguments can be applied to other groups/organizations such as the Knights of Columbus or the Catholic Church. Not accepting my conclusions just because "some groups are different" is intellectually dishonest special pleading."
I also write,
"Some other considerations:
The Knights of Columbus and the KKKare so much different! What about other groups who don't have anti-gay agendas?
This is not an argument from analogy. The main points of my argument are this: if a group has unsavory goals that are against your values, you shouldn't support them, become a member, or give them money."
Please be intellectually honest and properly represent others' stances before posting.
I'm for gay marriage because gays' recognition as legal unions just like straights can profoundly benefit society. It's quite simple. If you're worried about the negatives of gay sex, you should recognize that marriage tremendously decreases the likelihood of married persons having sex with multiple partners. Gay marriage will reduce the sexual underworld and thus reduce these problems that you mention.
The study you link from 1999 about gays and mental illness is quite dated. An article here in 2002 from the APA (http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb02/newdata.aspx) notes that previous data was wrong. Besides, you can't just link one study and come to a conclusion because this isn't how science works.
Suicide may be a big issue in the gay community because of various factors that straights have to also deal with, but gays can be quite ostracized, bullied, etc at a higher rate than straights. Legalizing gay marriage will work to normalize homosexuality and decrease these negative outcomes.
You say that abortion is the killing of an infant, but this isn't the case at all. We don't call cells infants and infants don't live inside of wombs. Infants are autonomous individuals. Most abortions happen very early before consciousness or the capacity to feel pain occurs. I'm for women being able to choose what they want to do with their bodies. You can read my longer answers on my blog under the tag of abortion.
I think anyone who decides they want to leave the homosexual lifestyle was not a homosexual in the first place. Homosexuality is not just some choice. If these people claimed to be homosexuals and then decided against it I think they were lying to themselves the whole time anyways..
Also, your straw man tactics in this do not help you in any way. They are blatantly obvious.... KKK connection? Really? Nice Glenn Beck tactic boyo
The main discussion in my post regards whether or not one should join or support groups that are ideologically opposed to your aims
Do you think this could have been accomplished without mentioning those in white hoods? I think you could have demonstrated your point by mentioning someone else. Thats all.
if a group has unsavory goals that are against your values, you shouldn't support them
And if you were in a vegatative state, that is, conscious to the outside world, and yet unable to communicate at all, would you want someone from the Klan or the K of C to be your caregiver?
Suicide may be a big issue in the gay community because of various factors that straights have to also deal with, but gays can be quite ostracized, bullied, etc at a higher rate than straights. Legalizing gay marriage will work to normalize homosexuality and decrease these negative outcomes
Given that suicide rates are higher in secular Europe than in the religious United States, I doubt you could back up this claim but youre welcome to try.
I think anyone who decides they want to leave the homosexual lifestyle was not a homosexual in the first place
Sort of a No True Scotsman falacy.
I'm sorry, but were you referring to me or JV?
KKK connection? Really? Nice Glenn Beck tactic boyo
I'm sorry, but were you referring to me or JV?
"It's quite simple. If you're worried about the negatives of gay sex, you should recognize that marriage tremendously decreases the likelihood of married persons having sex with multiple partners."
Only if you're under the impression that State sanction creates monogamy. I'm curious as to your train of thought here.
My goodness, they're really hurling the metaphorical feces over at JV's Facebook page. Let's address some of the better ones.
How can people take him (JD Curtis) seriously?... Especially with his Birther banner
Off topic red herring. And besides, am I allowed to wonder why..
"Chicago Tribune reporter and Obama biographer David Mendell ... sensed .. unease during Obama's 2004 campaign for the U.S. Senate.
When Mendell approached Team Obama about interviewing the candidate's friends and family in Hawaii, he was stunned by the resistance.
Given that the Tribune had endorsed Obama even in his ill-fated campaign for Congress, Mendell writes, "Turning down the Tribune's request for family interviews would not seem a wise decision at this point in the Senate campaign."
Mendell's next sentence demands attention: "However, Obama's aides must have been wary about what I would turn up."
Obama finally agreed to assist Mendell on the condition that an Obama press aide track his reporting and "monitor the content of [his] interviews."
The interview that seems to have worried Obama most was the one with his maternal grandmother, Madelyn Dunham.
Eighty-two at the time, Dunham struck Mendell as "cautious and protective." She called the interview off after half an hour, grabbed Mendell's arm and told him, "Be kind to my grandson." After this, she stopped talking altogether."
Link
This is the man who tries to argue that the majority of Nazis were gay
No, this is the guy who successfully argued that the leadership of the National Socialists Workers Party skewed disproportionately homosexual at the time of the group's founding in 1920's Bavaria. This FACT is substantianted by (among others) no less a writer than William L. Shirer whose eye-witness acoount The Rise and Fqall of the Third Reich is considered to be the consumate work on the subject. Feel free to show where he was wrong though. Good luck with that.
You were just saying that people who want gay rights are acting immoral, or against their morals, when they support organizations that go against their ideals, quite possibly unknowingly. Not saying that anyone against homosexual rights is immoral
Multiple failures.
1. please define for us whether the K of C is "against homosexual rights" or just defending traditional marraige. Is the K of C trying to stop all rights of homosexuals?
2. How could people who support the K of C be "immoral" if the K of C isn't immoral? Would they be immoral if they supported a moral organization? Please explain.
you should recognize that marriage tremendously decreases the likelihood of married persons having sex with multiple partners
"The recently published Gay Couples Study conducted by Colleen Hoff at the Center for Research on Gender and Sexuality, San Francisco, looked at the relationships of 566 committed gay couples (males) over a three-year period. The study showed that 47 per cent of gay couples had “sex agreements” that specifically allowed sexual activity with others. An additional 8 per cent of couples were split: one person favored sex outside the relationship and the other expected monogamy. Only 45 per cent described their relationships as monogamous.
Proponents of “marriage equality” sing their refrain over and over: “Our relationships are just the same as yours.”
Not even close. While just 7 per cent of Americans believe that adultery (sexual infidelity by married, heterosexual partners) is morally acceptable, Dr Hoff’s report emphasizes that nearly 50 per cent of gays in committed relationships specifically affirm sexual infidelity. Other research shows shockingly higher rates (75-95 per cent) of non-monogamy in long-term gay relationships" Link
These people can;t even get past such Sesame Street terms like "same" and "different". HA!
Post a Comment