This is an area I enter into with much fear and trembling. Not because I believe that I am wrong, but because this is an issue that our "tolerant" society has absolutely no tolerance for. Two years ago, a time when all the cool kids were using MySpace, I posted a short two sentence bulletin informing all my friends that the opportunity to vote on the Florida Marriage Amendment was coming up. That is all I said and nothing more. The next thing I knew some of my fellow co-workers were calling up others and trying to get people to wage a war against me. Blogs were posted on MySpace saying some of the harshest things I have ever heard someone else say about me and all of this because I posted a short quip about an upcoming ballot. My advice is this. If you are offended or even angered about my position then may I suggest that you enter into civilized conversation with me about it. I am open to being shown that I am wrong, but the only way I'm going to be convinced of this is if I see actual reasons why.
Before I get to the blog proper let me reply to one small choice of words used to describe people like me: bigot and homophobe.
Bigotry is when someone holds to a position without justifiable support. They cling to their ideas and ideologies without reason, and they blast those who disagree with fiery rhetoric. I do not believe that is me, as I have my reasons. Whether they are justifiable is another question, but I would hope that in the least they hold meaning and content.
Homophobia is when someone is afraid of homosexuals. This is perhaps the most ridiculous response to being against gay marriage that I have ever heard of in my life. What it really equates to is "shut up." That, my friends, is bigotry. Just think about it. Take arachnophobia for example, the fear of spiders. Is a fear of spiders in any way related to thinking that spiders are morally wrong when they spin their web or crawl along your wall? No, it's merely being afraid of them. Someone could think that spinning webs is morally wrong or morally right, but that would have no effect on if they were afraid of them or not. If people out there are really afraid of homosexuals then the moral feelings on homosexual marriage is not in any way linked to it. And really, if I actually was afraid of homosexuals then I'd want them to be able to skip about in the open shamelessly. I wouldn't want a closet homosexual to sneak up on me, I'd rather them be walking around in rainbow shirts so I could hide in trash cans when I saw them coming. Finally, if I really am a homophobe, then you're a homophobe-phobe. Quit being such a homophobe-phobe.
Anyway, this is going to be in response to President Obama's speech at the Human Rights Campaign. Obviously his speech was not meant to be a formal argument for homosexuality, seeing as today nothing in politics is a formal argument for anything. However, hidden in his speech are different presuppositions and arguments that I wish to reply to. Obama is a master at sounding like he is saying a lot while actually saying nothing at all.
This isn't something I would normally reply to, but I think it's how Obama deals with the opposition. When asked about abortion he told us that it's above his pay-grade. When referring to the Bible and homosexual marriage he argued that it wasn't clear. And now when referring to the arguments for being against homosexual marriage they are outworn and old. This is how to sidestep the issue, or in other words say that the opposition does not matter. Is the entity in the womb a human? Obama says it doesn't matter. What does the Bible say about homosexuality? Obama says it doesn't matter. What are the arguments for traditional marriage? Obama says they do not matter. What matters is his ideology. If I were a betting man I would bet that not only is Obama incapable of replying to pro-life, pro-Scripture, pro-marriage positions, but that he could not even begin to represent them.
Can you remember the last time we as a nation had a formal debate on the issues of abortion, Christianity, and homosexuality? I cannot. May I suggest that when the nation is divided on an issue that we all step up and demand the positions to be fleshed out and presented rationally? Why do we have to limit ourselves to politically empty speeches, bumper stickers, and news broadcasts of two people talking over one another? Are Americans not capable of listening to two well-informed speakers and then reaching a rational conclusion on the issue? Do we really have to rely on a select minority making laws and decisions for the rest of the country because they have some moral understanding that we do not?
No one wants to be against a civil right, much like no one wants to be against freedom of choice. You want something to gain support you call it a civil right. You want to kill another person then you call your position pro-choice. A civil right is a right or freedom granted to all persons which cannot be denied. If I ran a country that guaranteed civil rights but then made a law that denied a civil right the only way to argue against it would be to appeal to something which transcends all society. If civil rights are defined by society, then they can be taken away by the same society. In short, civil rights presuppose God which is why the Declaration of Independence grounds them in the Creator. No God, no civil rights.
Now we must ask ourselves what is the role of the government when it comes to civil rights. Once again, according to the Declaration of Independence the role of the government is to secure these rights. When we keep something secure we keep it safe from harm. To secure something does not mean to create it, but to guard it.
Now, what is marriage? Think about this for a moment. What is the actual essence of marriage? What is it that changes about a relationship between two people when they get married? Is it love? No, as you can have love before a marriage. It is commitment? No, as you can be committed before a marriage. I have thought long and hard about this and to me it seems that the only real change that can occur between two people in marriage is if there is some change that comes from God. Every other factor can be in effect in a relationship with or without a marriage. Therefore, it seems that marriage is only meaningful if it comes from God. Without God we are merely using different words to describe a relationship that is fundamentally the same before and after the wedding.
So we have (1) civil rights are granted by God, (2) civil rights are upheld by the government ,and (3) for marriage to be substantively meaningful it must be a change initiated by God.
Can you begin to see how marriage must be, by definition, a religious institution that has nothing to do with the government? It also begins to emerge that if the government were to declare the marriage between a same-sex couple and a heterosexual couple as unequivocal that marriage really does become meaningless. Homosexual marriage is an assault on marriage. Of course, the government might say to itself, "hey, if people aren't getting married and having children then this society isn't going to last" and therefore decides to grant certain benefits to married couples, but the government by no means is the arbiter of marriage.
And therefore, marriage cannot be a civil right seeing as that it is not something we are born with. We are born with the right to live a life where we can succeed, fail, laugh, cry, and enter into loving committed relationships, but marriage is a union granted later in life through God. That is something totally different from a civil right. Civil rights are never added by God, they necessarily follow from being a creation of God.
Too late, it's already there. The definition of discrimination is to make a distinction between two different things. The President must be a natural born citizen. If Joe is born in Florida and Ravi is born in India then Joe is eligible to be President and Ravi is not. When you go to the airport the metal detectors and designed to pick out those carrying potential weapons on the aircraft. The machine is designed to discriminate between those who have metal objects on them and those who do not. There is a distinction, or difference made between the two.
Now, let me take a moment to explain the logic that will be used here as some people miss the point and walk away thinking that I have equated homosexuality with murder. Suppose I wanted to make an argument for abortion and I came out with this:
(1) Women have a right to choose.
(2) Women can choose to have an abortion.
(3) Therefore, women can rightfully choose to have an abortion.
This is logically valid, but is the argument true? Let's change it around a little.
(1) Women have a right to choose.
(2) Women can choose to kill their children.
(3) Therefore, women can rightfully choose to kill their children.
Is this true? Do women have a right to kill their children? Probably not. Therefore, it seems that the only way the first argument is true is if we change the first premise to "(1*) A woman's choice is always morally right", but then it also follows that women can morally kill their own children which is obviously not true! Ergo, the argument for abortion completely ignores the question of if abortion is morally right. Choice has nothing to do with the moral nature of abortion! The nature of the child in the womb does!
Let's visit Obama's argument for gay marriage:
(1) The Constitution does not allow for discrimination.
(2) It is discrimination to not allow same-sex couples to get married.
(3) Therefore, the Constitution demands that we allow same-sex couples to get married.
Is this actually true? Let's change it around a little.
(1) The Constitution does not allow for discrimination.
(2) It is discrimination to send the guilty to jail and let the innocent roam free.
(3) Therefore, the Constitution demands that we do not send criminals to jail (or jail everyone?!).
Another obviously ridiculous conclusion. What went wrong here? Obviously discrimination is not the deciding factor here. What needs to be changed to the argument for homosexual marriage is that not allowing homosexual couples to get married is a morally wrong application of discrimination. Yet, as we have already seen marriage is not something that the state can grant or deny. I can be given a piece of paper or denied a piece of paper, but I cannot be granted or denied by the state something that is given by God.
Therefore, we have reached two conclusions. First, the Constitution already includes discrimination (differentiation), and second, Obama's argument does not answer the question of if or if not homosexual marriage is something that is granted by the state. Which, as we have seen, is not.
This is represented by that omnipresent yellow equal sign on the backs of cars. When I see this I always wonder exactly what it means. Obviously it's in reference to gay people and how they are equal to straight people, but I am not sure in which way they mean it. Does it mean that gay people can enter into loving relationships just as straight people can? I'm sure they can. Or does it mean that gay people can make committed relationships just like straight people? I'm sure they can as well. In fact, there is nothing preventing gay people from making loving committed relationships to whomever they want right now. The have the equal right to do this just as much as I do. I can make loving committed relationships to my mother, brother, sister, friends, or dog just as much as gay people can.
There are also obvious differences that cannot be equated in any such way. Gay people can't be in a committed homosexual relationship with each other and have heterosexual sex. Nor can two people of the same sex produce a child. I guess they also couldn't argue that only one of them must always cook and clean. So it seems to me that there are certain traits true of heterosexual people that aren't of homosexuals.
So I guess the only thing they can be referring to make it a meaningful statement is that gay people have a right to the benefits that come with marriage just as much as straight people do. Do they? I am not sure. This seems largely a political issue, and I am in no way trained as a politician. Does the government have a interest in granting homosexual relationships with the same benefits that come with marriage? To me it seems absurd to think so. There are issues like hospital visitation and whatnot that might I might bend a knee towards, but the idea that homosexuals necessarily have a moral right to the same benefits just doesn't follow from any notion of equality I can think of. And whichever ones actually do would fall under a civil union, not a marriage for reasons that we have already seen.
Finally, as far as I know, in California there is absolutely no difference between a civil union and a marriage. All the benefits that come with marriage also come with a civil union and still the battle over marriage wages. It's a battle over the definition of the word. And this, it seems, is because people know that when you change the definition of a word you change the definition of the world. Not in any actually meaningful sense, but in the eyes of those who live in the world. It would appear that the demand for equality is actually a demand for acceptance in the eyes of the nation as promulgated through the law. This is not the role of the government as I will argue in the next section.
Before I get to the blog proper let me reply to one small choice of words used to describe people like me: bigot and homophobe.
Bigotry is when someone holds to a position without justifiable support. They cling to their ideas and ideologies without reason, and they blast those who disagree with fiery rhetoric. I do not believe that is me, as I have my reasons. Whether they are justifiable is another question, but I would hope that in the least they hold meaning and content.
Homophobia is when someone is afraid of homosexuals. This is perhaps the most ridiculous response to being against gay marriage that I have ever heard of in my life. What it really equates to is "shut up." That, my friends, is bigotry. Just think about it. Take arachnophobia for example, the fear of spiders. Is a fear of spiders in any way related to thinking that spiders are morally wrong when they spin their web or crawl along your wall? No, it's merely being afraid of them. Someone could think that spinning webs is morally wrong or morally right, but that would have no effect on if they were afraid of them or not. If people out there are really afraid of homosexuals then the moral feelings on homosexual marriage is not in any way linked to it. And really, if I actually was afraid of homosexuals then I'd want them to be able to skip about in the open shamelessly. I wouldn't want a closet homosexual to sneak up on me, I'd rather them be walking around in rainbow shirts so I could hide in trash cans when I saw them coming. Finally, if I really am a homophobe, then you're a homophobe-phobe. Quit being such a homophobe-phobe.
Anyway, this is going to be in response to President Obama's speech at the Human Rights Campaign. Obviously his speech was not meant to be a formal argument for homosexuality, seeing as today nothing in politics is a formal argument for anything. However, hidden in his speech are different presuppositions and arguments that I wish to reply to. Obama is a master at sounding like he is saying a lot while actually saying nothing at all.
Standing against homosexual marriage is holding to outworn arguments and old attitudes.
This isn't something I would normally reply to, but I think it's how Obama deals with the opposition. When asked about abortion he told us that it's above his pay-grade. When referring to the Bible and homosexual marriage he argued that it wasn't clear. And now when referring to the arguments for being against homosexual marriage they are outworn and old. This is how to sidestep the issue, or in other words say that the opposition does not matter. Is the entity in the womb a human? Obama says it doesn't matter. What does the Bible say about homosexuality? Obama says it doesn't matter. What are the arguments for traditional marriage? Obama says they do not matter. What matters is his ideology. If I were a betting man I would bet that not only is Obama incapable of replying to pro-life, pro-Scripture, pro-marriage positions, but that he could not even begin to represent them.
Can you remember the last time we as a nation had a formal debate on the issues of abortion, Christianity, and homosexuality? I cannot. May I suggest that when the nation is divided on an issue that we all step up and demand the positions to be fleshed out and presented rationally? Why do we have to limit ourselves to politically empty speeches, bumper stickers, and news broadcasts of two people talking over one another? Are Americans not capable of listening to two well-informed speakers and then reaching a rational conclusion on the issue? Do we really have to rely on a select minority making laws and decisions for the rest of the country because they have some moral understanding that we do not?
Homosexual marriage is a civil right.
No one wants to be against a civil right, much like no one wants to be against freedom of choice. You want something to gain support you call it a civil right. You want to kill another person then you call your position pro-choice. A civil right is a right or freedom granted to all persons which cannot be denied. If I ran a country that guaranteed civil rights but then made a law that denied a civil right the only way to argue against it would be to appeal to something which transcends all society. If civil rights are defined by society, then they can be taken away by the same society. In short, civil rights presuppose God which is why the Declaration of Independence grounds them in the Creator. No God, no civil rights.
Now we must ask ourselves what is the role of the government when it comes to civil rights. Once again, according to the Declaration of Independence the role of the government is to secure these rights. When we keep something secure we keep it safe from harm. To secure something does not mean to create it, but to guard it.
Now, what is marriage? Think about this for a moment. What is the actual essence of marriage? What is it that changes about a relationship between two people when they get married? Is it love? No, as you can have love before a marriage. It is commitment? No, as you can be committed before a marriage. I have thought long and hard about this and to me it seems that the only real change that can occur between two people in marriage is if there is some change that comes from God. Every other factor can be in effect in a relationship with or without a marriage. Therefore, it seems that marriage is only meaningful if it comes from God. Without God we are merely using different words to describe a relationship that is fundamentally the same before and after the wedding.
So we have (1) civil rights are granted by God, (2) civil rights are upheld by the government ,and (3) for marriage to be substantively meaningful it must be a change initiated by God.
Can you begin to see how marriage must be, by definition, a religious institution that has nothing to do with the government? It also begins to emerge that if the government were to declare the marriage between a same-sex couple and a heterosexual couple as unequivocal that marriage really does become meaningless. Homosexual marriage is an assault on marriage. Of course, the government might say to itself, "hey, if people aren't getting married and having children then this society isn't going to last" and therefore decides to grant certain benefits to married couples, but the government by no means is the arbiter of marriage.
And therefore, marriage cannot be a civil right seeing as that it is not something we are born with. We are born with the right to live a life where we can succeed, fail, laugh, cry, and enter into loving committed relationships, but marriage is a union granted later in life through God. That is something totally different from a civil right. Civil rights are never added by God, they necessarily follow from being a creation of God.
Not allowing homosexual marriage is reading discrimination into the Constitution.
Too late, it's already there. The definition of discrimination is to make a distinction between two different things. The President must be a natural born citizen. If Joe is born in Florida and Ravi is born in India then Joe is eligible to be President and Ravi is not. When you go to the airport the metal detectors and designed to pick out those carrying potential weapons on the aircraft. The machine is designed to discriminate between those who have metal objects on them and those who do not. There is a distinction, or difference made between the two.
Now, let me take a moment to explain the logic that will be used here as some people miss the point and walk away thinking that I have equated homosexuality with murder. Suppose I wanted to make an argument for abortion and I came out with this:
(1) Women have a right to choose.
(2) Women can choose to have an abortion.
(3) Therefore, women can rightfully choose to have an abortion.
This is logically valid, but is the argument true? Let's change it around a little.
(1) Women have a right to choose.
(2) Women can choose to kill their children.
(3) Therefore, women can rightfully choose to kill their children.
Is this true? Do women have a right to kill their children? Probably not. Therefore, it seems that the only way the first argument is true is if we change the first premise to "(1*) A woman's choice is always morally right", but then it also follows that women can morally kill their own children which is obviously not true! Ergo, the argument for abortion completely ignores the question of if abortion is morally right. Choice has nothing to do with the moral nature of abortion! The nature of the child in the womb does!
Let's visit Obama's argument for gay marriage:
(1) The Constitution does not allow for discrimination.
(2) It is discrimination to not allow same-sex couples to get married.
(3) Therefore, the Constitution demands that we allow same-sex couples to get married.
Is this actually true? Let's change it around a little.
(1) The Constitution does not allow for discrimination.
(2) It is discrimination to send the guilty to jail and let the innocent roam free.
(3) Therefore, the Constitution demands that we do not send criminals to jail (or jail everyone?!).
Another obviously ridiculous conclusion. What went wrong here? Obviously discrimination is not the deciding factor here. What needs to be changed to the argument for homosexual marriage is that not allowing homosexual couples to get married is a morally wrong application of discrimination. Yet, as we have already seen marriage is not something that the state can grant or deny. I can be given a piece of paper or denied a piece of paper, but I cannot be granted or denied by the state something that is given by God.
Therefore, we have reached two conclusions. First, the Constitution already includes discrimination (differentiation), and second, Obama's argument does not answer the question of if or if not homosexual marriage is something that is granted by the state. Which, as we have seen, is not.
Homosexual marriage is a basic equality.
This is represented by that omnipresent yellow equal sign on the backs of cars. When I see this I always wonder exactly what it means. Obviously it's in reference to gay people and how they are equal to straight people, but I am not sure in which way they mean it. Does it mean that gay people can enter into loving relationships just as straight people can? I'm sure they can. Or does it mean that gay people can make committed relationships just like straight people? I'm sure they can as well. In fact, there is nothing preventing gay people from making loving committed relationships to whomever they want right now. The have the equal right to do this just as much as I do. I can make loving committed relationships to my mother, brother, sister, friends, or dog just as much as gay people can.
There are also obvious differences that cannot be equated in any such way. Gay people can't be in a committed homosexual relationship with each other and have heterosexual sex. Nor can two people of the same sex produce a child. I guess they also couldn't argue that only one of them must always cook and clean. So it seems to me that there are certain traits true of heterosexual people that aren't of homosexuals.
So I guess the only thing they can be referring to make it a meaningful statement is that gay people have a right to the benefits that come with marriage just as much as straight people do. Do they? I am not sure. This seems largely a political issue, and I am in no way trained as a politician. Does the government have a interest in granting homosexual relationships with the same benefits that come with marriage? To me it seems absurd to think so. There are issues like hospital visitation and whatnot that might I might bend a knee towards, but the idea that homosexuals necessarily have a moral right to the same benefits just doesn't follow from any notion of equality I can think of. And whichever ones actually do would fall under a civil union, not a marriage for reasons that we have already seen.
Finally, as far as I know, in California there is absolutely no difference between a civil union and a marriage. All the benefits that come with marriage also come with a civil union and still the battle over marriage wages. It's a battle over the definition of the word. And this, it seems, is because people know that when you change the definition of a word you change the definition of the world. Not in any actually meaningful sense, but in the eyes of those who live in the world. It would appear that the demand for equality is actually a demand for acceptance in the eyes of the nation as promulgated through the law. This is not the role of the government as I will argue in the next section.
Hate crime bills must be put into place to protect homosexuals.
Hate crimes would be laws that make hate crimes against homosexual illegal. Why? Because we've all heard the name of Matthew Shepard, the homosexual who was killed for merely being gay. Laws must be passed in order to protect homosexuals from such crimes according to Obama. This idea is completely superfluous--it's already illegal to commit crimes. If someone were to steal my stereo because they wanted it, or if they stole my stereo because I was gay it makes no difference. They stole my stereo, and that is morally wrong. Are homosexuals equals or are they not? If we're equals, as those bumper stickers seem to imply, then there is no reason to grant homosexuals protections that heterosexuals are not granted.
Further, hate is not a crime! If I were to tell you that I hated homosexuals would that be a crime? You might (rightfully) walk away in disgust, but I didn't commit a crime. In America we are allowed to hate and love whomever we please! I can hate gays, blacks, politicians, women, bloggers, Christians, or emo bands all I want, but I am by no means doing something illegal. It's only illegal when I act upon these feelings and commit a crime because of them. In fact, it's also illegal if I were to kill someone out of some sort of twisted love for them.
Let me tell you this, if we as a nation start making hate a crime then we're screwed. Period. You can't begin to make thoughts illegal. That's totalitarianism. The idea of a hate crimes bill should be something that all people should stand against regardless of if your the party that becomes "protected" or not. The government is not there to tell us how to think.
Further, hate is not a crime! If I were to tell you that I hated homosexuals would that be a crime? You might (rightfully) walk away in disgust, but I didn't commit a crime. In America we are allowed to hate and love whomever we please! I can hate gays, blacks, politicians, women, bloggers, Christians, or emo bands all I want, but I am by no means doing something illegal. It's only illegal when I act upon these feelings and commit a crime because of them. In fact, it's also illegal if I were to kill someone out of some sort of twisted love for them.
Let me tell you this, if we as a nation start making hate a crime then we're screwed. Period. You can't begin to make thoughts illegal. That's totalitarianism. The idea of a hate crimes bill should be something that all people should stand against regardless of if your the party that becomes "protected" or not. The government is not there to tell us how to think.
The only reason someone would be for a bill against hate was if they were searching for social acceptance.
Homosexuals are facing the same struggles as African Americans did in the past.
This is obviously true. Homosexuals everywhere are being forced to sit at the back of the bus, only attend certain schools, and not have a say in the voting booth. We can also recall that during the Civil Rights Movement comedians were mocking racists everywhere, television shows all had people acting as blacks and arguing for their so-called equality, and every pop icon in the world led a social movement towards the social acceptance of black people.
"Don't Ask Don't Tell" prevents homosexuals from their right to openly serve for their country.
This is an area I'm not going to say much about, as I'm attempting to make philosophical arguments against homosexual marriage. When it comes to statistics and sociology I am by no means an expert (I'm an expert in nothing), and it always appears that no matter what one study says there is another contradicting it or showing how it's bunk. While studies do impact my reasons, they aren't going to be any part of my actual case as I cannot actually check their validity with absolute certainty. I guess in a certain sense I am forced to pick the ones that already fit my viewpoint unless I spot something wrong in the logic or presuppositions of them.
With that being said I am not sure that this is something that Obama really needs to be focusing on right now. This is a very dangerous time in the history of the world, and major sociological experiments don't appear on the top of the list given the current global climate.
Further, I cannot help but conclude that homosexuality is linked to promiscuity. I do not mean that as a blanket statement as I know not all homosexuals are promiscuous and that all heterosexuals are no where close to being icons of propriety. Yet, when I look at gay pride parades I can't help but notice a bunch of men dancing around in their underwear. Does acting like a weirdo while wearing next to nothing really define what it means to have pride? I guess gay people might be saying that they are so comfortable with their sexuality that they can wear it on their sleeve, but this isn't a decent way for anyone to act. It doesn't matter who you are. And I can't help but feel that if such behavior is characteristic of homosexuality that they really might be a threat to morale on the battlefield.
With that being said I am not sure that this is something that Obama really needs to be focusing on right now. This is a very dangerous time in the history of the world, and major sociological experiments don't appear on the top of the list given the current global climate.
Further, I cannot help but conclude that homosexuality is linked to promiscuity. I do not mean that as a blanket statement as I know not all homosexuals are promiscuous and that all heterosexuals are no where close to being icons of propriety. Yet, when I look at gay pride parades I can't help but notice a bunch of men dancing around in their underwear. Does acting like a weirdo while wearing next to nothing really define what it means to have pride? I guess gay people might be saying that they are so comfortable with their sexuality that they can wear it on their sleeve, but this isn't a decent way for anyone to act. It doesn't matter who you are. And I can't help but feel that if such behavior is characteristic of homosexuality that they really might be a threat to morale on the battlefield.
Another reason that sticks out in my mind for being against gays in the military deals with sexual attraction. When we go to the gym men shower in one room and women in another. I'm sure all the women would be bothered if I just happened to meander into their dressing room. The same would seem to be true if I knew I was being lusted over by a gay man while I was showering. I would assume that living on the battlefield is a very personal and intimate affair and adding sexual attraction to the mix might just be a problem to the success of the mission.
People like me need to compromise on the issue.
This is Obama's big catch phrase. Let's just all find the common ground and get along. I've said it once before and I'll say it once again. On some issues there just is no common ground. When I go to see a movie and I want to see one show and my friend something else we might agree to see something that we both want to see. That's finding a compromise. However if I want to murder people and my friend does not, then there is no compromise here. It doesn't do any good to start screaming, "don't like murder, then don't murder people!" it just tells the people who are against murder to go live in a cave and not worry about society.
This is what Obama's position always equates to. He says that he knows we won't always agree on abortion, but let's just let those people who want to murder their children do so and everyone else who doesn't not do so. That's nothing but the pro-abortion side wrapped up in nice language. It isn't a compromise at all. What the compromise is is that people like me can shut up and sit in my nice little traditionalist box and the rest of the world will do as it pleases. "You can have your religion and morals inside your house and church, we get the real world."
And really, I've already compromised on the issue. I've been forced to. Civil unions are slowly being granted every right that marriages are. Soon there will be absolutely no difference between the two. The only difference will be the word that we use to describe them. And you know, if it isn't a compromise to live in a world where homosexuals get everything they want while all we have left is eight letters thrown together in a particular order, then I don't know else is.
But like I said before, this issue doesn't seem to be about anything but a specific agenda to push homosexuality down the throats of every person living in America.
This is what Obama's position always equates to. He says that he knows we won't always agree on abortion, but let's just let those people who want to murder their children do so and everyone else who doesn't not do so. That's nothing but the pro-abortion side wrapped up in nice language. It isn't a compromise at all. What the compromise is is that people like me can shut up and sit in my nice little traditionalist box and the rest of the world will do as it pleases. "You can have your religion and morals inside your house and church, we get the real world."
And really, I've already compromised on the issue. I've been forced to. Civil unions are slowly being granted every right that marriages are. Soon there will be absolutely no difference between the two. The only difference will be the word that we use to describe them. And you know, if it isn't a compromise to live in a world where homosexuals get everything they want while all we have left is eight letters thrown together in a particular order, then I don't know else is.
But like I said before, this issue doesn't seem to be about anything but a specific agenda to push homosexuality down the throats of every person living in America.
1 comment:
Man, you always put things exactly the way I think them. Your arguments are made with sound logic and reasoning. Can't say the same for the other side.
Post a Comment