Gay Patriot Header Image

So, Leftist Outrage Confirms Conservative Hate Speech?

Sometimes, our critics, in reacting to our posts, end up making our points for us. As Bruce puts it, in his comment to my latest post, “All one needs to do is read the comments from ‘outraged’ liberals in this post to reinforce Dan’s point.

In that post, I wondered why some gay marriage advocates brand all gay marriage opponents haters rather than engage their arguments.  In the thread following that post, many such advocates didn’t even bother to acknowledge my argument, but instead resorted to insult.

One critic even trotted out the standard insult used by gay liberals to slander gay conservatives, “self-loathing” while assuming we came by our ideas via “religious teaching/indoctrination” and ignoring facts.  And while busy making assumptions about us, he accused us (and our defenders) of being impervious to “reasoned discussion”!  WOW.  Well, he did make me smile.  🙂

And if, as another critic put it, “anyone using the traditional’ definition of marriage as the bulwark of their argument is arguing a losing case,” why then do so many opponents of that definition resort to ad hominem? If it were a losing argument, couldn’t then they easily rebut it via reasoned discussion?

To be sure, some of our critics do make valid points, a number of which echo things I have said on this blog, notably about “no-fault divorce [being] a greater threat to social cohesion than gay marriage.

It was, however, one critic whose comment really caught my eye:

You have no idea what this student presented in his speech. It was enough to get an experienced professor as well as two students rather riled up. He could have been saying hateful things about homosexuals, which for some reason you gloss over and assume that because he was defending traditional marriage that he must have been arguing in good faith. (Really, can’t you just learn to love the big gay homo that you are?)

First, note his last snide aside, assuming yet again (yawn!) this particular gay conservative is self-hating (as it seems we all must be to fit into his narrow world view).  Yeah, maybe the guy did say hateful things about homosexuals, but does that justify the reaction of the professor, calling him a “fascist bastard”?

As to getting the experienced professor and students riled up, well, just look at the thread and this man’s own comment.  He does get riled up pretty easily, doesn’t he? In the post, I didn’t engage in any ad hominem attack, merely wondered why some gay marriage advocates use such tactics against their ideological adversaries.  And here, we get him accusing me of self-hatred!

Now, yo see why I assumed the student opposing gay marriage was doing so in good faith.  I posted that piece in good faith.  Still, it managed to get my ideological adversaries (well not so much adversaries if they bothered to familiarize themselves with my thoughts on gay marriage) riled up.  Some leftists do seem to get riled up merely by the expression of an opposing point of view, as that comment confirms.

To that unhappy man, the outrage of the professor and students (“riled up”) becomes proof of conservative hate speech.  In reality, however, their outrage is more a projection of their own inner anxieties than a commentary on the arguments of their intellectual opponents.

Share

36 Comments

  1. In that post, I wondered why some gay marriage advocates brand all gay marriage opponents haters rather than engage their arguments. In the thread following that post, many such advocates didn’t even bother to acknowledge my argument, but instead resorted to insult.

    Perhaps a contributing factor in that thread, GPW, was that certain of your defenders resorted to insult themselves, instead of engaging their opponents’ arguments in any meaningful or intellectually honest fashion. I.e., “bad example” syndrome.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 17, 2009 @ 5:35 pm - February 17, 2009

  2. (Not including you, of course – You consistently set a great example.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 17, 2009 @ 5:36 pm - February 17, 2009

  3. ILC, good point in #1 and thanks for your followup. 🙂

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — February 17, 2009 @ 6:22 pm - February 17, 2009

  4. Mom Blogs – Blogs for Moms…

    Trackback by Anonymous — February 17, 2009 @ 8:10 pm - February 17, 2009

  5. In that post, I wondered why some gay marriage advocates brand all gay marriage opponents haters rather than engage their arguments.

    Because they can’t. Raw emotion rules.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 17, 2009 @ 8:25 pm - February 17, 2009

  6. In reality, however, their outrage is more a projection of their own inner anxieties than a commentary on the arguments of their intellectual opponents.

    This is unsurprising. We are, after all, dealing with people who base their politics on self-flattery.

    Comment by Classical Liberal Dave — February 17, 2009 @ 10:16 pm - February 17, 2009

  7. That’s one steaming pile of crap they gave you for a comment thread, Dan. Just got through wading through all that and don’t fancy doing it again.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 18, 2009 @ 2:29 am - February 18, 2009

  8. Just another example. A 12 year old girl posted a video arguing against abortion. YouTube had to moderate comments because of leftists who threatened to rape her.

    Comment by V the K — February 18, 2009 @ 7:15 am - February 18, 2009

  9. #8 – Oh, that was sooo tolerant and loving of them to do that… (SARC)

    Funny how the libtards accuse us of being hateful and mean-spirited, but we never stoop to the levels they set for themselves.

    “Raising the bar” for these people means doing the limbo.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — February 18, 2009 @ 10:30 am - February 18, 2009

  10. I am honored that my comment was a teaching moment for your readership.

    You are right, the snide aside was counter-productive. I have a hard time setting down the snark pipe. But you or I both still have no idea what was said, nor does the original article make it any clearer.

    As far as the professors remarks about the kid being a fascist bastard, I’m guessing that such an unprofessional remark is the impetus for the investigation into his conduct. I’m not defending his lack of decorum.

    So you and I are on opposite sides of the ideological divide. I believe that eventually the courts will recognize that treating homosexuals as separate but equal is unconstitutional, just as they have with African Americans and women. I find it hard to believe that as a gay man you would argue differently.

    Let’s agree to disagree.

    Comment by t4toby — February 18, 2009 @ 1:54 pm - February 18, 2009

  11. I didn’t engage in any ad hominem attack

    I think the correct term is ad homonem.

    Comment by Rightwingsnarkle — February 18, 2009 @ 2:15 pm - February 18, 2009

  12. While it is indeed true that liberals fags such as myself often call you out as self-loathing, there is a very good reason. The sage of Concord, Ralph Waldo Emerson famously said “Your actions speak so loudly I can not hear what you are saying.”

    In the case of a blogger, your words are your actions. When considering your pitifully consistent actions, your rigid devotion to an ideology espoused by people who mostly hate you, clearly demonstrates a pathology of some sort. We liberal fags tend to think that particular pathology has an obvious Uncle Tom, internallized homophobia.

    As my friend t4toby (who I believe is not gay, fwiw) said, you really would be much happier if you accepted yourself for the big old fag you are.

    Now, to return to the original post that sparked this follow-up, both t4toby and I made pretty much ther same rebuttal to your premise – at nearly the same time, no less. Oh – those were the first comments by either of us in that thread. We both pointed out that your entire argument was based on a straw man. A ridiculously flimsy straw man at that.

    To wit, in the paragraph immediately preceding your introduction of that lame straw man, you admit you do not know precisely what the student said. You even end the paragraph with (blog down just now, relying on memory here) “He may well have been engaging in hate speech.” Then, the magic straw man appears! “If he was merely…” Yeah, and if pigs had wings they could fly. If I was filthy rich – instead of merely filthy – I wouldn’t be writing this because I’d be diving in Palau or something. If there were any logical validity to your “argument” none of us would be here now.

    I want to additionally mention that after we introduced our comments pointing out the huge, glaring, dare I say flaming, fallacy in your post the “discussion” was not centered on the original post at all. No, it turned into a “discussion” of the merits and or rights vis a vis gay marriage. Need I state explicitly your fallacy of the day? Seems most folks in this neck of the interwebs could use a crash course in remedial rhetoric.

    Comment by PeeJ — February 18, 2009 @ 2:50 pm - February 18, 2009

  13. LOL.

    I knew what ILC would say even before I opened this comment box.

    ILC, you can continue to lie, and lie and lie, but no matter how many times you repeat your lies, you remain the ONLY liar.

    And calling you a liar is not “name calling” it is acknowledging the truth, which I then proved with your own words.

    And I’m not the only one to acknowledge your penchant for lying.

    Comment by American Elephant — February 18, 2009 @ 3:14 pm - February 18, 2009

  14. t4toby in #10, look I’m going on the record of the professor said. It says he called him a “fascist bastard.” Sounds like hate speech to me. Having heard similar language hurled against me, i took the article at face value. It was, after all, in the LA Times, not known for dishonest coverage of left-of-center professors.

    I appreciate that you are not defending his lack of decorum, but will you criticize that professor for his nasty rhetoric?

    As to gay marriage, I don’t see it as you do. I just don’t see gay marriage as an issue for the courts, but for the legislature.

    Thank you very much for your comment and your tone. I hope you’ll continue to comment here exactly in the tone of this comment as I have always hoped that comment section would serve as a forum for civil criticism.

    Good reason to call me out as “self-loathing,” PeeJ? That assumes I am self-loathing.

    Please show me the language in my post — or in any post I have written — which defines me as self-loathing. Why do you assume I’m not happy? Why do you assume that I don’t accept myself as gay? Please tell me which actions define me as self-loathing or is it that gay people who offer opinions differing from you own are, by definition, self-loathing?

    I guess it’s your just prejudiced view of conservatives.

    If you read this blog, you’d know that I’m out to my family and have been out in numerous conservative gatherings. Yes, conservative gatherings. I even self-identified as gay at the Republican National Convention. You’d know that if you read this blog (or the Washington Blade).

    So, with that in mind, let’s look at another assumption you make, about my “rigid devotion to an ideology espoused by people who mostly hate you.” Um, what is that ideology? How can you, who have made assumptions about me, easily demonstrated to be false, divine that?

    Or do you just assume any conservative is rigidly devoted to ideology? But, aren’t you rigidly devoted to certain assumptions about conservatives?

    People who mostly hate me? How do you know that? If you’d read this blog, you’d know that I have largely been welcomed into conservative circles even when I come out as gay. You’d know that I’ve encountered more hostility for my conservative views from gay people on the left that I have encountered for my sexuality from straight people on the right.

    Your comment is a case in point. You both assume I’m “self-loathing” and that conservatives “mostly hate” me. Where’s your evidence for that?

    You attribute my political views to a pathology of some sort, yet you yourself define your own pathology, “We liberal fags tend to think that particular pathology has an obvious Uncle Tom, internalized homophobia.” You “liberal fags” (your expression not mine) are determined to dismiss you ideological adversaries as suffering from internalized homophobia. Where’s your evidence? It’s all inside your head.

    Further, you claim my argument is based on a straw man. But, it’s not. It’s based on the record, the professor calling the student a “fascist bastard.” And I deliberately admit that I did not know what the student has said because I wanted to suggest that even in those circumstances, name-calling would not be warranted as a rebuttal to hate speech.

    Anyway, evidence has since surfaced confirming he did not engage in hate speech. So, the conditional you dismiss as being akin to pigs flying turns out not to be a conditional at all. There you go again, making the point of my post, suggesting it was all but impossible for Lopez to make a rational argument against gay marriage.

    You naturally assume that advocates of traditional marriage engage in hate speech.

    You do make a good point in the final paragraph, addressing something which has long troubled me about the comment threads to blog posts. I would rather critics (and supporters) address the point of the post, but, alas, they do not.

    (PeeJ, I deleted your duplicate comment and acknowledge the apology.)

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — February 18, 2009 @ 3:32 pm - February 18, 2009

  15. Dan, my comment was logically sound and it included the very proof you are demanding. As I said before, it’s not any particular post or comment ‘pon which I base my conclusion but a pattern, an entire quilt woven together from what you keep saying over and over and over. Perhaps the word “rigid” carries stronger negative connotations for you than I assumed. But do you deny your, let’s say, ardent support of conservatism? Conservatism as evinced by the bulk of those who espouse it these days is more an ideology than a political philosophy. (That’s a much longer argument that I might lay out in detail some other time) I too have been “welcomed” at conservative functions. But I wasn’t so foolish as to believe most of the people there didn’t privately despise me, frequently spoke ill vicious things about of me because I’m gay, or that. For me to seek out and associuate myself with such people would be pathological.

    I won’t cite DSM IV here but your pattern of behavior fits the criteria for several adaptive personality disorders. That’s not a diagnosis which I am not qualified to make and which would require a fair bit of interview with a qualified physician or psychologist.

    This word you use, confirm. It does not mean what you think it means. None of the “proof” you link to has one whit of exculpatory evidence. You still have no idea what the student said nor do you know the manner in which it was said. Not one of those references details what Lopez said. They give their own assessment – while apparently not having a full transcript – and claim that he he cited several biblical passages, going so far as to cite the specific passages. Was that all he said? It seems unlikely. Did he recite those passages in a threatening, ordering way? Did he tell anyone, say, “you’re going to hell and burn?” I have no idea, neither do you. No one who does know exactly what transpired has revealed just what it was. Finally, with respect to this single point, your argument from authority,. viz. it was in the LA Times and they’re soooo liberal, applies more proeply to the source of your “confirmed evidence.” That is, all written by people who have a demonstrable interest in spinning the situation.

    Finally, I don’t mean to be pedantic nor do I want to start some dick-size or SAT score fight. I say the following to establish my That said, in addition to relying on the soundness and essential completeness of my preceding arguments, in order to further establish credibility I want to explicitly state my credentials. Way back in high school I won a national forensics title and have also tought college classes in logic and rhetoric. Please don’t tell me I’m not making a good argument when I know damn well that I am.

    Comment by PeeJ — February 18, 2009 @ 4:53 pm - February 18, 2009

  16. PeeJ is too limited in his thinking to imagine that any case against gay marriage can be made apart from hate. Yet, in the much-maligned previous thread, I and others did just that thing.

    Comment by V the K — February 18, 2009 @ 5:59 pm - February 18, 2009

  17. Two statements from the leftists here are noteworthy:

    “Your rigid devotion to an ideology espoused by people who mostly hate you clearly demonstrates a pathology of some sort.”

    And this one…

    “When they have conservative conventions like CPAC, blogger or otherwise, do they let you gay conservatives near the kids? Or are you segregated off into your own little area “for everyone’s safety”

    I have to wonder if these people ever even set foot outside the gay-left ghetto. They don’t deal with actual conservatives, they deal with boogeymen. In the same way, the only way they can conceive of a conservative gay person is as a self-loathing caricature.

    They probably think of themselves as the best educated, most worldly people around. And yet their mindset is very narrow, and exceedingly provincial.

    Comment by V the K — February 18, 2009 @ 6:46 pm - February 18, 2009

  18. Funny, I thought about all those who claim conservatives hate gays as I listened to Laura Ingraham’s radio show yesterday.

    Except Laura wasn’t hosting — she was gone for the day. So, the evil, homo-hating, social-conservative had asked raging L-E-S-B-I-A-N Tammy Bruce to host her show and talk with her evil, homo-hating, social-conservative audience. Indeed, Tammy seems to be the most frequent guest host on Laura’s show.

    Once again liberals world view is contradicted by the facts.

    Comment by American Elephant — February 18, 2009 @ 9:32 pm - February 18, 2009

  19. We liberal fags tend to think that particular pathology has an obvious Uncle Tom, internallized homophobia.

    And given that you fully endorse and support Obama Party members who say things like this about you, we conservative gays can rather convincingly demonstrate that you’re projecting your own problems onto others.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 18, 2009 @ 11:20 pm - February 18, 2009

  20. Or we can point out how liberal fags like yourself fully endorse and support marriage bans.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 18, 2009 @ 11:23 pm - February 18, 2009

  21. I resent the implication that opponents of gay marriage can only base their objections on religious precepts and/or such opposition must follow from someone’s religious faith.

    Comment by Ignatius — February 19, 2009 @ 12:02 am - February 19, 2009

  22. I resent the implication that opposition to gay marriage is legitimate and deserves any consideration.

    Comment by Attmay — February 19, 2009 @ 11:29 am - February 19, 2009

  23. Thats’the great thing Attmay, you’re allowed to resent whatever you want, no matter how stupid.

    Comment by The Livewire — February 19, 2009 @ 11:54 am - February 19, 2009

  24. One thing I do notice, despite emotions running high, is a lot of the ‘regulars’ can disagree on issues civilly. ILC and I have similar beliefs on how to get to different goals. V the K and I can joke about religion and we can joke about Dan’s lack of dates. I can make a comment about Julie, she can laugh and joke back.
    We all benefit in the common interests and truely celecbrate our differences. I mean I supported the Ohio DOMA (and still do) and likely would have voted for 8. My arguements are heard and respected, even when they’re not agreed with. Likewise, I can respect a well thought out opinion, even as I find my range with the main snark cannon on others.

    Even Attmay and Michigan Matt, who I think I personally disagree wth the most, I can find ground we do agree on, and even sometimes not shoot a snarky reply to Attmay 🙂

    It’s funny to me, to read and celebrate diversity every day, and yet to have new readers with such calicifed opinions, that they don’t see it.

    Comment by The Livewire — February 19, 2009 @ 12:15 pm - February 19, 2009

  25. Dan’s lack of dates? That’s history. 🙂

    Now, I “suffer” from a lack of free evenings.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — February 19, 2009 @ 12:36 pm - February 19, 2009

  26. Congratulations! Thought about introducing you to a classmate I know in Cinci, but two Dans dating would be, weird.

    Now if only I had a social life 😛

    Comment by The Livewire — February 19, 2009 @ 12:54 pm - February 19, 2009

  27. #24 – “Dan’s lack of dates? That’s history.”

    Way to go Dan! I am really happy for you. (Of course, this means I have to suspend my “Get Dan a Date” contest.)

    Just kidding. 😉

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — February 19, 2009 @ 1:12 pm - February 19, 2009

  28. #25 – “Now if only I had a social life.”

    Okay, LW, let me see what I can do. My grandmother was a matchmaker in the Old Country. (Cue “Fiddler on the Roof” soundtrack.) 😉

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — February 19, 2009 @ 1:13 pm - February 19, 2009

  29. LOL, Well I’m 1/4 Polish Jew if that helps.

    Comment by The Livewire — February 19, 2009 @ 1:30 pm - February 19, 2009

  30. #23:

    I mean I supported the Ohio DOMA (and still do) and likely would have voted for 8. My arguements are heard and respected, even when they’re not agreed with.

    I respect no one who supports anti-gay legislation.

    I respect no one who believes gay relationships deserve the Orwellian “separate but equal” status.

    And I certainly respect no one who insults me.

    What I do is obey the house rules on comment manners.

    You’re not self-hating. It is obvious you have a very high opinion of yourself. It’s the rest of us you hate and you would cut off your nose to spite your face rather than admit that conservatives are wrong on this.

    I have just finished reading a fine book by Jonathan Rauch entitled “Gay Marriage: Why it’s Good For Gays, Good For Straights and Good For America”. Read it. It explains how gay marriage can and should be legalized without opening the door for the usual red herrings dragged out constantly by the usual liars.

    You “same-sex marriage opponents” are a stain on conservatism that will take years to erase. I don’t consider social conservatism to be conservative at all, just Christian socialism. And unlike the claims by that anachronistic rag Newsweek, we are NOT all socialists now. I know I’m not.

    Many of the enemies of gay marriage are enemies of gay EVERYTHING. If they ban gay marriage in all 50 states, they won’t stop there.

    Comment by Attmay — February 19, 2009 @ 6:17 pm - February 19, 2009

  31. Filtered, yet again.

    WordPress sucks.

    Comment by Attmay — February 19, 2009 @ 6:18 pm - February 19, 2009

  32. I knew what ILC would say even before I opened this comment box.

    You’re finally learning! Good for you.

    ILC, you can continue to lie, and lie and lie, but no matter how many times you repeat your lies, you remain the ONLY liar.

    Nope. Wrong again. But hey – Next time, AE, try using *more* lies and personal invective. You really didn’t use enough, in this thread or in the other. We need more of that from you, on this blog.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 19, 2009 @ 7:39 pm - February 19, 2009

  33. One thing I do notice, despite emotions running high, is a lot of the ‘regulars’ can disagree on issues civilly. ILC and I have similar beliefs on how to get to different goals.

    Livewire, I agree with that 🙂 although I’d go a little farther because to me it seems like we agree on a majority of issues.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 19, 2009 @ 7:42 pm - February 19, 2009

  34. Wow. First America tomorrow the world!

    Attmay apparently holds me in high regard.

    The Livewire- Evil overlord 🙂

    Comment by The Livewire — February 19, 2009 @ 8:23 pm - February 19, 2009

  35. […] And since they themselves are so full of hatred, they’re convinced that we espouse, in the words of one man who has chimed in quite a bit to at least two threads on this blog, an “an ideology espoused by people who mostly hate you.” […]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » (Some of) Our Critics & Their Imaginary Conservatives — February 19, 2009 @ 8:25 pm - February 19, 2009

  36. I still do not understand the reasoning behind “gay marriage” in California. The No on Prop 8 supporters simply did not make their case – it makes no sense to me. There are too many important unanswered questions that are the size of elephants in a room.

    One of the more interesting truths about so-called “gay marriage” is the fact that gays actually don’t marry all that much where it is legal. Only 10% of gays get married in such places as Massachusetts, Canada, Belgium, and Netherlands. There is low demand and low motivation among the gay community to actually marry. Therefore, the reason gays vociferously protest for the formality of “marriage” must go beyond their interest in the institution itself. For the record, two-thirds (66%) of all heterosexuals enter into marriage (married, separated, divorced, or widowed).

    So far, in California, approximately 18,000 “same-sex marriages” occurred. That’s about 36,000 gays out of an estimated community of over 1 million. Admittedly, California stats are tough to analyze given the quirky political climate the past year. You have pent-up demand but you also had a lot of uncertainty. Typically, where gay “marriage” is legal (see Massachusetts and Connecticut) you have an initial surge that drops off dramatically in subsequent years and levels off at 5% to 15% of the total gay population that marries. (note: I assume approximately 2% to 4% of the state’s population would identify itself as gay.)

    In other words, approximately 90% of gays choose (prefer) not to “marry”. As a result, less than 0.5% of an entire population will require this “re-definition” of the historical, traditional institution of marriage. 99.5% of the population of a state/nation has no need for redefining marriage and “civil unions/partnerships” are perfectly acceptable to gays. Unless, of course, there’s more at stake than actual “marriage” which would only imply some kind of “hidden agenda”.

    So what’s my point? Other than the obvious points above, the data suggests the following:

    1) There is a substantive and profound natural difference between gay vs. straight sexual relationships. Hence, different terms to define the “relationship”. There’s something about opposite sexes having a much more natural desire to “marry” than “same-sex”. Empirically, we know opposite sex unions are fundamentally different and functionally superior to the partnership of two identical genders. Obviously, opposite sex unions with the complexity of complimentary genders, husband/wife roles, ability to produce life, and the creation of father/mother relationships, sets them apart from same sex partnerships. It’s comparing apples to oranges (i.e. “unequal”). It appears same-sex partnerships vs. opposite-sex unions are inherently separate and unequal.

    2) The issue of “marriage” is not the real driving force behind No on Prop 8 supporters. It appears to be a red herring or possibly a “front” for some other “unspoken” issues. Maybe it’s the “symbolism” of marriage, not the reality? If so, this is where gays lose credibility in their protests and appear disingenuous about their real motives. Also, the recent gay intimidation, harassment, and open persecution of Prop 8 supporters reveals their long term intentions to restrict the free exercise of religion and stifle free speech. Let’s be honest here – who can deny there is a fundamental clash of opposing moral visions?

    3) Elton John just makes way too much sense to me:

    “We’re not married. Let’s get that right. We have a civil partnership. What is wrong with Proposition 8 is that they went for marriage. Marriage is going to put a lot of people off, the word marriage.”
    “I don’t want to be married. I’m very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership,” John says. “The word ‘marriage,’ I think, puts a lot of people off.
    “You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships.”

    Essentially, there is no harm and no injury to gays while defining marriage as a union between a husband and wife. Elton John apparently lives a happy and free life. He certainly doesn’t play the victim card. And there’s no comparison to what the blacks suffered in America.

    By the way, is Elton John a hate-filled ignorant bigot?

    4) Gays appear insecure about their own morality. Let’s assume I’m an atheist and I think morality is in your own head. Then it’s your guilt-trip not mine. There is no moral or value judgment being placed on a civil union vs. marriage. It’s a definitional issue. Heck, for all I know, maybe civil unions are more righteous – who really cares? The gay community comes across as very insecure about their own morality. Maybe this issue in the minds of gays is all about “moral equality” not marriage equality? If so, then the gays vs. religious are both engaging in the same moral play (i.e. defining foundational values).

    Hypothetically speaking, as an atheist, I find this debate silly and I find gay activists far more concerned about pushing their own moral agenda than they are willing to admit (i.e. transgenderism, alternative family constructs, sexual adventurism, etc.).

    5) Finally, will the supporters of No on Prop 8 please describe the harm and injury gays suffer because I label the gay partnership a “civil union”? Again, what is the harm to gays because I hold to the historical definition of marriage as the union of husband and wife? Please provide specifics and examples of your injuries – make your case – how are gays injured? So far, the silence has been deafening.

    The advocacy for “gay marriage” appears to be mostly a self-image issue for gays (i.e. psychic pain, deep insecurities, etc.). It certainly isn’t about the loss of housing, education, employment, opportunity, health, integration, relationships, love, and sex. There’s just no observable lack of freedom and opportunity for the gay community. Please spare me the comparisons to the plight of African-Americans. About the best one can do is compare gays to the plight of other self-identified minorities such as atheists, bisexuals, communists, nudists, Jehovah Witnesses, vegans, Muslims, transvestites, polygamists, etc. who feel they are misunderstood by the majority.

    Are we obligated to redefine our institutions only to accommodate everyone’s self-image, emotional issues, morality, and eccentricities for the sake of inclusion? Is that even remotely possible? Where do you draw the line on inclusion? And who sets the boundaries? What foundational values unite us? Where do our inalienable rights come from – society or our Creator? Either way, doesn’t the Prop 8 victory only confirm that society, history, and religion are all in agreement as to the definition of marriage?

    Bottom line: Gay marriage is on the wrong side of history, illogical, unnecessary, and will never be embraced as a legitimate institution in society. However, though it may be autocratically coerced (i.e. via court system edicts) gay marriage will never be truly accepted in the hearts and minds of a civilization without sound reasoning and the underpinnings of great moral wisdom. Try as you may, gay marriage will never achieve the same consensual acceptance as that which exists for ethnic and racial civil liberties – there’s no comparison.

    Respectfully yours,
    Sean Ragan
    Camarillo, Ca.

    Comment by Sean Ragan — February 21, 2009 @ 4:16 pm - February 21, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.