Re: Interesting thread…
[quote=”Aleck”]Where has it been said that there is a “homosexual agenda” in place that aims to control the individual opinions of every man, woman and child on the planet?[/quote]
[quote=”sgtdraino”]Oh, I dunno. Lots of places. The gay marriage movement leads me to believe that this is the agenda.
See, I do believe that “marriage” is first and foremost a religious institution, with a specific definition that we’ve already been through. I’ve already said I’d have no problem with a gay union institution that provides the same rights and benefits as marriage (though I might want to close the financial loopholes for both marriages and unions). But I don’t think it should be called marriage. I believe the gay community specifically does want the word “marriage,” because they are trying to legitimize their behavior. I think it’s more about that, than about the benefits. They want their behavior to be viewed as “normal.” If they achieve legalized gay “marriage,” then they are a step forward towards trying to force society to change its opinions.[/quote]
You know, maybe I missed that passage in [i]The Protocols of the Elders of Judy[/i], or maybe I just missed that midnight Sabbat meeting in SF (then again, it’s probably just because I’m only meeting them halfway), but I never received any update that the ultimate goal of gay activists is to hold control over the minds and opinions of all people. You’ve yet to explain how the legitimization of gay marriage by recognizing the concept legally would result in any [b]forced[/b] adoption of a particular opinion by the public at large, or how these mind-control techniques would be put into operation. Tell me, was the public forced to change its opinions on mixed marriage? Have interracial marriages led to an establishment of a “thought police” which seeks to forcibly change the opinions of every person? Do we not still have mindless cretins who believe that such acts water down or sully the purity of the White Race? Hasn’t the increased acceptance of such marriages been the result of individual reconsidering or rejection of outmoded ways of thinking, with a shift toward tolerance and acceptance, rather than some conspiritorial hogwash about the public being strongarmed into accepting what they automatically reject? And, lastly, would wearing hats made of aluminum foil be of any help?
[quote=”sgtdraino”]When it comes to something like racism or child abuse, it’s easy for all of us to agree. “That’s immoral!” And we feel better. But when it comes to something more controversial, homosexuality or abortion, for example, you get large numbers of people who disagree. These groups naturally fight over whose definition of morality is eventually held to be “true” by the highest secular authority we have; the US government. Which side of the argument is “good” and which side is “evil” largely depends on your point of view. And naturally, attempts by one side to legitimize its case as “true” will be strongly resisted by the opposing side.
In cases where right and wrong are purely a judgement call, and individual rights are not involved, the government should remain neutral on the subject, with no official opinion. The problem is, that doesn’t stop activists on both sides from trying to force the government to give an opinion. The primary method for doing this has become the court system, using activist judges with loose interpretations of the law to invent new rights not previously existing. This circumvents Congress, and consequently the will of the people. It attempts to force an artificial change in attitudes, instead of allowing attitudes to change naturally over time.[/quote]
It’s easy for most people to agree that racism is wrong at this point in time, but in this country in the past, racism was much more widely spread, accepted, and codified into laws and policies both private and public. Large numbers of people disagreed when attempts to legitimize the treatment of all races as equal were put into place via legislation and court decisions during the Civil Rights movement. Are you claiming that these actions were wrong? It would appear not, seeing as how you qualify your statement with the phrase “as long as individual rights are not involved.” Seeing as how the individual rights of African-Americans were seen as being infringed upon, you would agree that these steps were needed, no? Explain, then, how seeking equal protection and recognition under the law is any different when it comes to homosexual men and women.
[quote=”Aleck”](BTW, isn’t it a blatant contradiction to state that one isn’t a fan of “slippery slope” arguments such as those posited by Scalia, and then turn around and state that legal recognition of gay marriage would lead to the legal recognition of polygamy? How is that statement any different from that of Scalia’s?)[/quote]
[quote=”sgtdraino”]Interesting point! 🙂 Allow me to turn that around a bit. If the courts recognized a constitutional right to gay marriage, with all the legal benefits regular marriage brings, can you think of any reason why polygamists could not then demand the same right?[/quote]
Yep. Though you skirted the issue of how your statement is any different from Scalia’s, I’ll let that slide down its own slippery slope. Marriage as it stands now is the legal recognition of the union of two people, a man and a woman (let’s not let religion enter into the debate, and keep this strictly secular, if you will). The expansion of this definition to encompass same-sex unions is not that large of a leap. It simply removes a gender bias. If it were such a short leap from same-sex unions to polygamous unions, the leap from heterosexual unions to polygamous unions would be just as short. In both cases, it would mean removing a numerical bias in the marriage equation. By keeping marriages strictly dual-sex-oriented, one could still argue that polygamy could work — a single man could marry as many women as he liked (the women would not be bound in matrimony to *each other*, avoiding the touchy same-sex issue), and a woman could marry as many men as she liked. Follow those chains of connection, and we could end up with very nearly the entire country married to each other, without the question of gay marriages entering into the equation. You’d just end up with homosexual men and women still marginalized, but I guess that’s preferable. I mean, we wouldn’t want the sanctity of polygamous marriage tainted by the presence of homosexuals. 🙄 Anyway, enough of this fanciful crap. The primary point about marriage is, I feel, that it is a union of two people, and the gender question is one that is, IMO, much more easily resolved than the multiple partners question (has anyone ever argued that polygamy was *not* a choice and that they were born polygamous?).