Liz Mair reminded us yesterday of something significant about the New Hampshire House’s rejections of “a bill that would have made their state legislature the first one to repeal” the state’s decision to recognize same-same unions as marriage: the legislature that rejected repeal was overwhelmingly Republican.
Now, to be sure, the GOP leadership did push repeal, but the rank and file did not entirely fall into line. This is pretty significant considering how small the districts are in the Granite State; most representatives know their constituents. They’ll have to deal with them directly when the legislature is not in session (and even when it is). Thus this vote is considerably more significant than a vote in a larger state where legislators contact with their constituents is often filtered through their staff and special interests.
In Liz’s view,
New Hampshire Republicans who voted against repealing gay marriage made the right call. Gay marriage doesn’t represent a threat to any individual liberties so long as robust conscience protections are in place, whereas the repeal of it would undermine a prior expansion of individual liberties (even if civil unions were permitted).
Gay marriage doesn’t represent a threat to any individual liberties? Not recognizing gay marriage also doesn’t represent a threat to any individual liberties UNLESS you believe it’s vital to individual liberty to have the government officially approve of everyone’s sexual lifestyle and domestic arrangement. It appears that Liz, B. Daniel, and friends believe just that. So, I expect them and all of their friends to immediately begin pressuring New Hampshire and all other states to recognize polygamy, for starters. After all, a straight man having two or more wives doesn’t represent a threat to anyone’s individual liberty, now does it? And since Liz seems to think that recognizing gay marriage is an expansion of individual liberty, she certainly can’t be against expanding such liberty for those who want more than one spouse, now can she?
Dan, I was presently surprised. When I first saw the vote, I thought the vote was close to the 2/3 majority, and then saw the vote was the other way. In fact, apparently a majority of Republicans voted against the ban.
Seane-Anna, for what it’s worth, if the vote was for polygamy, I’m guessing the vote would have been 300-0 or thereabouts.
You’re probably right, Pat, but on what grounds? After all, if legalizing gay marriage is about LIBERTY, then isn’t it an affront to liberty to have any restrictions on who can marry whom? Pat, I know you–and most other gays here– will say no, which just proves that the fight for gay marriage has nothing to do with liberty, and the claim that it does is just political warfare. Have a good evening, though.
Thanks, Seane-Anna. My evening is going okay. I’m watching 30 Rock right now. I hope you are having a good evening as well. Anyway, it’s not just about liberty. For me, it’s also about since most Americans believe that homosexuality isn’t the naughty thing that people thought it was, that it is a good idea to encourage stable relationships, like we do for straight couples. Since many of us believe it is a good thing, and at the same time, does not impinge on the liberties that oppose same sex marriage (i.e., churches should not have to perform any marriage they are opposed to).
On the other hand, I think we are in agreement that polygamy is not a good idea, and I oppose it. However, if a majority feel otherwise in the future, you do have a point. It won’t infringe on my liberty, as long as I’m not forced to marry more than one person.
Glad your evening is going well, Pat. Mine is, too: surfing the net, watching tv, and chatting with you. *ss* But to your point, yes, many people now believe that homosexuality “isn’t the naughty thing [they] thought it was”, but how did that change happen? It came about from constant agitation by gay activists who set their sites on tearing down the traditional moral edifice that had prevailed in America (and the rest of Western civilization) for centuries.
For a generation gays (and liberal straights) attacked and fomented disrespect, contempt, and outright hatred for traditional values in order to aggrandize homosexuality. The problem, Pat, is that having done that gays cannot now turn around and start declaring other unconventional lifestyles unacceptable. On what basis do gays make such moral judgments? On the same moral tradition they’ve mocked and spat upon? See the problem, Pat?
It’s starting to get late now and I’m getting tired so I’ll let you think on that while I retire for the evening. We can pick up our discussion later, if you’d like. For now, good night, Pat.
Seane-Anna, I can’t speak to all how gay rights came about. I was 4 years old when Stonewall occurred. When a group seeks to secure rights, it isn’t always pretty. And you have to understand that gay people, like any other people are not a monolith. You can see this from this blog alone. So while there were people, plenty perhaps, who mocked tradition, many others didn’t. However, keep in mind, right or wrong, it’s human nature that when one is attacked, and treated with disrespect, contempt, and hatred, to react in kind.
This constant agitation by gay activists, as you put it, wouldn’t have amounted to a hill of beans if it wasn’t for enough straight people who believed the underlying cause was just, if they haven’t had gay family members and friends who didn’t deserve the disrespect and contempt they received. And many started to question what was so sinful about homosexuality to begin with.
Also, since gay people are not a monolith, we also have different judgments. For example, many of those who you say have mocked traditional values look at those of us who support same sex marriage with surprise or even contempt that we would want the same traditions as heterosexuals. Fine by me, I don’t want to force people who don’t want to marry to get married. For others, they originally had contempt for traditional values, but have softened over time, and now believe that traditional values (including homosexuals) is a good thing. Or put another way, since homosexuals are getting attacked less, they are responding in kind.
But I don’t see exactly what the problem is that you see. As I see it, you believe A, B, C is okay, but not D, E, F, and G is not okay. However, I believe A, B, C, and D is okay. It’s as if you are saying that since I believe that D is okay, that I can’t make a moral judgment on E, F, and G. I’m afraid I don’t understand that.
@Pat, except for the ‘rights’ language, I agree with you.
@Seane-anna The thing to remember is that yes, people legislate morality all the time. Sometimes it’s not your morality (or mine). It doesn’t matter what the law says when it comes to our individual moral compass though, as long as it’s a just law.
New Hampshipe can legalize SSM, or create Fred or whatever. It’s when they say that you can’t say it’s wrong that it crosses the line. It’s when the courts say “You can’t undo it” that it’s wrong. It’s when it minimizes people’s freedom that it’s wrong.
I’ve said before I think Lawrence v. Kentucky was wrongly decided. The power is reserved to the states to (ab)use. It doesn’t mean that it’s not a stupid law, and I find it intrusive. It means the states can do stupid things and not be in violation of the (Federal) Constitution. I hold Ohio’s smoking ban in the same contempt I hold the law in the Lawrence case. Property owners should have the right to determine if they want to be smoke friendly establishments. People should have the right to frak whomever they want (consentually) in their bedrooms.
Now as to Liz Mair’s comments themselves. “whereas the repeal of it would undermine a prior expansion of individual liberties” Problem is, people make mistakes, sometimes a legilslature can look at something and go “Wow, that was a bad idea.” Normal examples are things like Prohibition. But also curtailing ‘liberties’ makes sense in hindsight. California’s raised the age of consent from 10 to 13, and later to 16. Does anyone (besides Harry Hay) really think curtailing the liberties of 10 year olds to consent was a bad idea?
Seane Anna:
Here is a novel idea. How about if we have civil unions for all with the associated tax benefits, hospital visitation, wills, etc. and not have the government in the marriage business? Let marriage be a religious institution where the states have no say. Each denomination can subsequently say yay or nay on homosexual marriage. Most churches would say no to gay marriage, and that would be fine with me as the First Amendment grants religions that freedom. Well, until Obama gets his way and totally eviscerates the Constitution.
@Davinci
There are three problems with this as an endgame I can see.
1) One ‘side’ has shown that they won’t settle for civil unions.
2) Another side doesn’t see any reason to get government out of ‘marriage’ (or if you prefer, religion out of civil unions)
3)How do we go about doing this? We’re always going to have a patchwork, and it’s not a Federal question of how states define marriage.
This doesn’t even point out that one of the strengths (and weaknesses) of a republic is that nothing’s permanent. Let’s not forget the famous quote: “There is as much chance of repealing the Eighteenth Amendment as there is for a hummingbird to fly to the planet Mars with the Washington Monument tied to its tail.”
Hi Pat. Sorry to be responding to you a little later than planned. Pat, I know that gay people aren’t a monolith and that they make different moral judgments on things, but here’s the problem with that. For a generation gays have shouted to America that it’s diabolically wicked to pass judgment on people’s sexuality; that notion has been the CENTERPIECE of the gay community’s campaign to legitimize and mainstream homosexuality. Along with that idea has been the companion notion, also vigorously pushed by gays and liberal straights, that it’s wrong and undemocratic to “legislate morality”.
THOU SHALT NOT JUDGE PEOPLE’S SEXUALITY.
THOU SHALT NOT LEGISLATE MORALITY.
For a generation the gay community has pushed these ideas as if they were deeply held principles. How then, can gays say that somebody else’s sexual proclivities are wrong (moral judgment!) and should be banned (legislating morality!) without being monumental hypocrites? At the very least, the permission gays give themselves to judge other sexual outsiders shows that their damning of judgmentalism was about political warfare, not principle.
Now do you see the problem, Pat?
“I was 4 years old when Stonewall occurred.” I was 5.
Seane-Anna, first of all, I just don’t think things were as universal as you make it to be. Second, when someone asks or insists that others not judge their sexuality, I don’t think that necessarily translates to mean any kind of sex should be off judgment. For example, this includes pedophilia. Yes, the gay community has been severely criticized, and rightly so, for one time having NAMBLA under their umbrella. So whether the gay community disassociated themselves from NAMBLA for moral reasons, or just as a reaction to the criticism, it’s clear that at that point that people not passing judgment of any kind of sex was no longer a centerpiece to their campaign.
But let’s assume your premise is correct for sake of argument. If has been more than a generation since Stonewall. There are a lot of new faces in the gay community, and a lot of old faces are no longer with us. Attitudes change. Perhaps a lot of people believe a free for all regarding sex is not a good thing after all. There are plenty of people like me who believe that homosexual orientation is okay, no worse than heterosexual orientation. And as long as anyone, gay or straight, uses their orientation in a responsible manner, there is and should be no problem. As such, I can and do believe that homosexuality is not immoral or sinful, but I cannot say the same for polygamy, and certainly not pedophilia, bestiality, and incest.
Seane-Anna, one other thing. I realize you base your argument here because of your Judeo-Christian ethic based on your religion. And if there was one universal ethic (okay, there probably is, but we mere mortals don’t know what that is), I might be with you on this. Heck, there are plenty of gay people who have chosen to remain celibate, as well as gay people who try to achieve that goal, but who fall of the wagon occasionally and try to atone. I could have chosen celibacy as well, and lived a happy life. In some ways it might have been easier for me, and could have used that as an excuse to not try to form a relationship.
The fact is, there are a lot of moral systems out there, even within Christianity. And that’s because Christians cannot agree what the morality rules are. So I’ve made the moral judgment that homosexuality is okay. That seeking out a stable, committed relationship with another man is a good thing, certainly better than trying to have a relationship with a woman. I understand I may be wrong, and I may be punished by God for it, and I accept responisbility for it. But one has to make any choice on what one thinks best. That’s apparently what you aspire to do. Same for me.
“…there are a lot of moral systems out there…” That’s the idea of moral relativism, Pat, and that’s the idea that gays have vigorously proselytized in order to achieve their goal of destigmatizing and mainstreaming homosexuality. And yes, Pat, times have changed and newer faces are present in the gay community, but I don’t believe that means there’s any real backtracking from the campaign for moral relativism. Here’s why.
When gays were in the thick of the fight to legitimize their orientation, they promoted moral relativism to the entire country, not just among themselves. They, along with liberal straights, were especially keen on getting into the schools and indoctrinating children with the tenets of sexual freedom. Consequently, Pat, a whole generation grew up believing that ANY kind of sex was ok so long as it was consensual, that tolerance was the highest good, and judging was the highest evil. Pat, that is the belief system your community inculcated in them. Now you want to do a 180 and say, “Oh, now that we’re accepted society doesn’t have to be so tolerant and nonjudgmental anymore.” Do you think the generation you indoctrinated will just accept that? I don’t. Gays and liberal straights have done their job too well. I hope you will enjoy the fruits of your victory.
Seane-Anna, I am starting to be believe that one’s definition of a moral relativist is one who doesn’t believe that he/she does. And the battle cry of most (not all) of those who claim not to be moral relativists is “tolerance for thee, but not for me.” In any case, there are different moral systems out there. I don’t think admitted an obvious fact like that makes one a moral relativist, although I’ll assume you meant something more to it than that. But since I recognized that there are, it does make me wonder what is right, since obviously all of them can’t be. As I mentioned, there are several hundred Christian religions alone. With respect to homosexuality, a lot of people do base their values with respect to Scriptures. Most apparently came to the conclusion that homosexuality is sinful. However, some have read Scripture and came to the opposite conclusion (see the Kirk Cameron thread). To me, trying to come to a conclusion based on Scriptures is an exercise in futility in light of people coming to completely opposite conclusions. So, I came to my conclusion after years of rational thought on my own part. Does that make me a moral relativist? Maybe so. I’ll leave it to others to decide. Or better yet, I’ll leave it to God to judge for Himself.
I’ll assume your perception that gays and liberal straights were out to convince everyone that a sexual free for all is the way to go is true for the moment, for the sake of argument. I don’t agree they have done a good job, or at the very least, their job is far from complete. For example, Pres. Obama’s position on homosexuality is still evolving. Further, he comports himself as a committed husband and family man. If he is an adulterer, he isn’t bragging about it. Eliot Spitzer and David Vitter didn’t mention their penchant for prostitutes. Larry Craig, who cheated on his wife with men, denies that he is gay. I live near a subculture of persons where illegitimate births and government dependence is rampant, but yet these persons view homosexuality as sinful. Go figure that one out.
Regardless of what you or I believe the gay community inculcated or attempted to inculcate to the entire country, there are still plenty of homosexuals who don’t buy the sexual free for all. You must have learned that from this site alone. There are plenty of gay people who have the same perception of the gay community as you have and have not pulled any punches when criticizing the gay community. So there are those of us who do believe homosexuality is not sinful, but sexual irresponsibility is. That pedophilia, incest, and bestiality is sinful. In other words, there are a lot of us who never bought or accepted the sexual free for all, and never had to “do a 180” as you say. Are we hypocrites as well?
I would only call it a partial victory, because I do share some of the concerns that you have. Nevertheless I do hope to enjoy the fruits of whatever life brings me. I hope you do as well.
And the country is designed to accomidate all of them.
No matter what happens with government recognition of same sex partnerships (Fred, SSM, DOMA, etc) as long as the individual freedoms aren’t compromised. You should never be disallowed from yelling from the rooftops that it’s wrong, I should never be disallowed from arguing for Fred, Pat should never be disallowed from arguing for SSM, etc.
Now clearly, society can restrict individual freedom, even when it doesn’t affect anyone but me. I can’t (legally) get drunk and drive from the local bar to home, even if no one gets hurt. I can’t (w/o a lot of paperwork) own a P-90.
Society can also discriminate. We (society) can choose to recognize (and reward) the pairing of man and woman, but not provide that same recognition to two men or two women and three men etc etc. Discrimination, in and of itself, is not bad i’m sure we would all agree that allowing someone to ‘marry/fred’ the dead, or an animal would be bad. As long as we all agree, that’s fine. I refer to Rocky as my “four legged child” but I don’t claim him on my state or federal taxes as an actual child. could I lobby to claim my dog on my taxes, and if i got enough people to support me, then maybe I could claim him had a dependent.
That said, the line for freedom comes in others to reject my freedom in their own lives. Even if the government recognized Rocky as a ‘child dependent’ I couldn’t take him into a restaurant (that doesn’t allow dogs) and get a children’s menu. If Seane’s Salon offers a ‘Married discount’ she should be allowed to refuse that discount to Pat and his (hypothetical?) partner, even if the government calls them ‘married’. It is still(?) legal to smoke, but I can tell you no smoking in my house, etc etc.
Pat, every single gay person might not buy into the idea of a sexual free for all, but you have to admit that the majority of the gay community does, at least for as long as is necessary to get homosexuality COMPLETELY accepted and celebrated by EVERY person and EVERY institution in society.
Pat, all I’m saying–and maybe I’m not saying it very clearly–is that, in order to achieve their goal of normalizing and mainstreaming homosexuality, gays and liberal straights have torn down our culture’s traditional sexual and familial moral order and replaced it with the new “religion” of moral relativism, tolerance, and nonjudgmentalism, summed up in the “creed” of, Don’t impose YOUR morality on ME!
Sounds good, but here’s the problem. If gays (and liberal straights) REALLY BELIEVE in the above “creed”, then they can’t condemn anyone else’s nontraditional sexual lifestyle without being hypocrites. I mean, if they condemn, say, incest, aren’t they then guilty of intolerance, judging, and imposing their morality on others? Do you see what I’m saying, Pat?
Livewire, my “hypothetical” partner is real. 🙂 We have a civil union in NJ. So in terms of filing taxes, for example, we are considered the same as a married couple for the state, but single when filing federal taxes. Good idea about trying to deduct our four legged children. Ike, our 2 1/2 year old terrier mix, definitely believes he is human. But I would never take him to a restaurant even if it was allowed. He would make it his mission to meet every patron and taste all of their food.
In terms of discrimination, I pretty much agree with you there. But I think things would get tough regarding discrimination laws. My employer is a Catholic Order of Sisters, and they are bound by NJ State laws regarding discrimination, including recognizing civil unions for insurance benefits (My partner is not part of my plan, because it would be more costly than he being on his own plan). Many of my colleagues (including sisters) there and our president know I’m gay. No biggie.
But what about other religiously affiliated employers who don’t want to recognize civil unions/Fred/SSM in states where it is legal or if it becomes a national law? Perhaps there will have to be some religious exemption for this. I don’t know how this would work out. For example, are Catholic affiliated employers allowed to deny spousal benefits if one is remarried (with previous marriage(s) not ended by annulment) if they are so inclined?
As with your other example in which a business decides to not honor a marriage discount to a SSM couple, the owner should have that right. And, of course, I would have the right to not go there, and tell my friends and family. Anyway, I think things like this tend to work out better without government intrusion.
Seane-Anna, I see what you are saying. But it does seem like you are contradicting yourself. You are saying, on the one hand, that most gay persons support a sexual free for all. But then say the same persons are opposed to incest. In other words, they do not support a sexual free for all. For example, when someone says that he should be able to marry the person of their choice, there are the usual caveats attached to that. Just like if a straight man states that he should be able to marry the women of his choice, the usual caveats of non-related, not already married, not non-human, not underage apply.
Even if you don’t buy the above, the gay community, as you perceive it, is definitely making a moral judgment. They are saying that your (and other traditionalists) morals are wrong.
Despite all this, I get the point that you believe mainstreaming homosexuality is being done at the expense of “traditional” values. While I don’t see things as badly as you do, I have concerns myself. But it seems to me that you might believe that the only way homosexuality could be mainstreamed is by having all of the other traditions erode as well. Obviously, we can’t turn back the clock, but I would have preferred a different approach. Perhaps we could have got more support by religious and more socially conservative persons.
So getting back to my point. What about those of us who don’t believe in a sexual free for all, who believe in the same type of traditional values that you do, but allow for homosexuality. Further, that the same expectations that supporters of traditional values have for heterosexual persons regarding still sexual responsibility be applied to our homosexual persons. Is it hypocritical for us to believe that promiscuity, incest, pedophila, etc., are immoral?
Yes, I understand and agree that if a person says that no moral judgments should be made with any kind of sex, and supports complete sexual freedom, but then says that incest is immoral, it is hypocritical. But that’s not the question I pose.
Seane-Anna, I reread your comment. I must have misread it the first time, because I no longer see the contradiction that I suggested in the post above.
@Pat,
No offense was intended. I couldn’t remember whether you had a partner or not, thus the ?
Really, in Emperor Livewire’s republic, the private employer could disciminate. Your New Jersy example above is an example of the state using power that was *not* delegated to the Federal Government. If I was in NJ I could lobby for the law to be changed for example.
I think the private employer discriminating is important, especially in the modern world. Not just for something as base as Hooters girls, but with modern communications, I think that disciminiation is as valid a business decision as anything else.
If, for example, Sam’s Straight Shop has a ‘no dogs and gays’ policy, that’s fine (legally). Likewise under modern law, there’s no reason for you (and I) to not spread the word that “Oliver’s Open Bar” should have the business that “Sam’s straights” shouldn’t.
If Sam’s Straights makes a product or provides a service that makes him unique, good for Sam! Someone else can compete to make a similar but better service.
To use a RL example, Motorola’s droid bionic is not the most friendly to lefties. If this was a serious enough issue for me, there’s nothing to prevent me from trying to gather capital and produce the “Droid Sinister” better designed for lefties.
(aside, I’d buy a ‘Droid Sinister’ on the name aline.)
“What about those of us… who believe in the same type of traditional values that you do, but allow for homosexuality…Is it hypocritical for us to believe that promiscuity, incest, pedophila, etc., are immoral?” Yes. Because homosexuality has been mainstreamed as much as it has only by gays tearing down traditional values and promoting moral relativism, as I’ve said. And gay marriage in particular has been promoted on the grounds that it’s “hate” to prevent people from (legally) marrying who they love. On what grounds can a “traditionalist” gay such as yourself, Pat, claim that that’s true for homosexuals but not for, say, polygamists like Kody Brown? What would, what could, you say to Kody Brown if he accused you of “hate” and “polyphobia”, as well as hypocrisy, for opposing HIS right to marry whomever he loved? The hard truth, Pat, is that you wouldn’t have a proverbial leg to stand on in such a hypothetical confrontation.
Pat, I don’t mean to imply that traditionalists like myself are immune from hypocrisy or inconsistency. We can be as guilty of those things as any social liberal. But by defending traditional marriage and upholding heterosexuality as the norm we aren’t guilty of setting a precedent that will result in “…all of the other traditions erod[ing] as well.” Gays are guilty of setting such a precedent, Pat, whether you can see it or not. But now it’s time for me to go to bed, so we’ll continue later. Night.
Livewire, first you thought I was a woman. And then you forgot I had a partner. Yeesh. Just kidding. Seriously, no offense taken. I wouldn’t expect you or anyone know or remember that I have a partner.
Your position on discrimination is almost the same, if not identical, to Barry Goldwater. Just to put in an extra plug, I believe he ended up being a supporter of SSM before he passed away, or perhaps Fred.
My partner is also left-handed. To give you an example of some ignorance I had regarding lefties. He was using a pair of right-handed scissors, and was having difficulty using it with his left-hand. I thought that simply turning the scissors upside down would solve the problem. How gauche was that?
Seane-Anna, I appreciate your saying we are all hypocrites. I realize I can be as hypocritical as the next person, or perhaps more so. But I don’t understand how I can be hypocritical based on the actions and/or beliefs of others even when I don’t support such. Following your reasoning, it would seem that any Catholic who opposes pedophilia would be a hypocrite in light of the widespread child molestation and cover up scandal of the Roman Catholic Church.
On a forum like this, it’s easy for both of us to keep on missing a point the other is trying to make, so, if you could, indulge me on the following hypothetical situation. Perhaps this will clear things up.
Suppose we can go back in time to the 1960s (or earlier if necessary), when traditional values reigned supreme. Homosexual activists want to mainstream homosexuality in the following way. They want to keep the same traditional values, except allow for homosexuality. They believe that homosexuals should conform to the same expectations that heterosexuals do with regards to sexual responsibility, except they get to date persons of the same sex, and perhaps eventually have a civil union with a person of the same sex. And like all the traditional values, they also oppose promiscuity, polygamy, pedophilia, incest, etc. Further, let’s also assume that this won’t have the slippery slope of mainstreaming promiscuity, polygamy, pedophilia, incest, etc.
Which of the following would best represent your position here. A) You are okay with the mainstreaming of homosexuality under these conditions, B) You would be okay with the mainstreaming of homosexuality under these conditions, but believe it is impossible for these conditions to exist, C) you would not be okay with the mainstreaming of homosexuality under these conditions, regardless of whether it is possible for these conditions to exist.
To your other points, same sex marriage has been promoted in different ways. And some, perhaps too many, have used the word “hate” to opponents. But for the most part, it has always been about two people, about non-related persons, about adults. I understand your slippery slope fear, in particular with polygamy. But advocates always had the chance, and of course the right, to push for it, especially since polygamy does have precedence in the past, and in the Bible. These advocates would have to make their case. Right now, they have no where near any kind of support to make it possible in the forseeable future. If Kody Brown, or anyone else accused me of hate, no problem. He has that right under the First Amendment. And I have the right to say, “too bad.”
We have seen plenty of traditions erode over the past few thousand years in Western Civilization. And in most cases, it was good riddance. We had a traditions of despotism, religious or otherwise, subjugation of women, subjugation of persons of different races, very limited freedom. Even marriage (before SSM) changed quite a bit. We have usually progressed towards freedom in deciding whether a tradition should change, unless there is good reason to deny such freedom. I suppose the jury is still out regarding homosexuality, since it’s still pretty early in the game here.
In any case, many gay “traditionalists” believe there is precedence. Yes, I admitted that I am not basing my beliefs directly from Scripture for the reasons I gave previously. However, as I mentioned, there are passages that apparently support the notion that homosexuality is not sinful. Again, read the comments in the “Offering an un-PC view of homosexuality is ‘hate speech’?!?!” thread for that perspective if you wish.
Hi Pat. I got here later than planned so I’ll just answer your hypothetical “mainstreaming homosexuality” situation you posed above. And my answer is C. Why? Because I just don’t believe the conditions you described could ever exist and even if they could, that wouldn’t address the other problems arising from mainstreaming homosexuality, things like religious freedom being restricted because gays don’t like being told they’re sinning. So, that answers your question. I have to go to bed now. Good night.
Thanks, Seane-Anna for your answer. So homosexuality, in and of itself is the problem, and still would be even if the other things in the other things (promiscuity, polygamy, incest, etc.) weren’t mainstreamed. Obviously, we disagree on this. And we also disagree about the hypocrisy you mentioned. This helped clear things up. Thanks again.