Tuesday, November 26, 2013


Imaginary Conversations

I say: Listen, I don't hate homosexuals, the ones I know are nearly uniformly great people, and I don't believe I discriminate in any way against them.

The Left responds: But you are a Republican and by that very association you are being anti-gay.

I say: So you have a bias against Republicans?

The Left responds: Not at all, we are just seeing things as they are.

I say: So I am anti-gay because I am not a Progressive or a Democrat, and my actual beliefs, actions and feelings about gay people doesn't matter at all.

The Left responds: Yes. That is correct.

I say: I want gays to have all the rights, privileges and responsibilities associated with marriage I just don't want them to call it marriage because traditionally marriage is one man and one woman and procreation is the underlying reason.

The Left responds: If you don't support gay marriage, you are anti-gay. There is no rational reason not to include gays in the definition of marriage and if you don't then your only reason is hatred towards gays. The Supreme Court just said just that.

I say: I admit that slippery slope is not much of a reason, but it is a rational reason none the less, no matter how thin. I don't think marriage of gays will do any serious damage to the society (although I worry that children generally do better with both sexes involved in their upbringing). What I'm seriously concerned about is this: If you reject the time tested reason for marriage (procreation of the species by one man with one woman) and replace it with the new definition of the underlying reason "you really love the other," then you have no rational argument in opposition if, under the new definition, someone wants to marry a child, two spouses, an animal or something else; and allowing those things will do real damage to society.

The Left responds: You're comparing gay marriage to pedophilia or bestiality or polygamy, etc.. See what a hater you are.

I say: I'm not comparing; I'm talking about the natural consequences of replacing the traditional definition of marriage with the new one.

The Left responds: The new definition is two consenting humans of legal age who love each other. There is no child marriage, no bestiality, no polygamy, etc., no marriage to a house allowed.

I say: But then you are discriminating against someone who truly loves a child, for example, and wants to live, just as married straights and gays live together, with him or her. How can you deny someone else the rights you have?

The Left responds: The new definition is two consenting humans of legal age who love each other. There is no child marriage, no bestiality, no polygamy, etc., no marriage to a house allowed.

I say: But the traditional definition was different too and you argued that it was morally wrong because it did not allow two gay people to enjoy the same rights, privileges and responsibilities as straight people.

The Left responds: That's right.

I say: So you cannot imagine someone using your arguments to expand marriage to child marriage or multiple spouses or anything else a minority of humans truly love and want?

The Left responds: No. The change was just for gay people. That's all. And if you compare it to things outside the new definition, you're a hater.

I say: OK, I won't try to open your eyes to the ramifications of changing the traditional definition of marriage, but I do not hate gays.

The Left responds: Of course you do, or you could not have these thoughts.

I say:  I am completely tolerant of homosexuals.

The Left responds: It is not enough to be tolerant, you have to celebrate homosexuals and the more enthusiastically the better.

I say: So toleration is insufficient?

The Left responds: Yes, you have to think what we think or you are evil.


As somebody who's had a similar argument with you before, I don't think I've ever accused you of hating gays. And also, I still fail to see the slippery slope in expanding the definition of marriage to include any two consenting adults. That's not some arbitrary cutoff point; it's like the basic requirement for an agreement to be made. You don't see people screaming about the slippery slope involved with letting two consenting adults enter into a contractual agreement together. Nobody is worried about a man signing a contract with a cow or a rock or whatever. Marriage should be the exact same thing. Any sort of tradition in it being a man and woman probably has roots in Christianity, which has no place in government.

And since you agree with all the legal rights being afforded to gays that are given to married straight people, then what is your solution? And do you honestly see it as a more viable solution than the current process of expanding the definition of marriage?
The reason no one screams about slippery slopes and contracts is because illegal or immoral ones (against public policy) cannot be enforced. I don't think traditional marriage is only related to Christianity as it certainly existed before Christ was born. The solution is to pass laws giving full rights etc. but not calling the new partnerships marriage. I see that as getting my way. Obviously the nation may have other plans.
But I'm talking about marriage, as defined by US government. Any reason it insists on being just between a man and a woman is evidence of unwanted religion in US law.

And yes, the illegal or immoral contracts cannot be enforced. Just as the illegal marriages (i.e. marriages that aren't between two consenting adults) cannot be enforced either. No slippery slope.

And I agree with you about not calling it marriage at all, for anyone. But I don't see anyone advocating for that, so I'm perfectly ok with the movement to expand the definition of marriage to include 2 consenting adults.
Brother and Sister marriage is OK with you? Father Daughter marriage is OK? Sorry, over the line for me. There is sound public policy in traditional (that is, not necessarily Christian) marriage in that better citizens are produced when both sexes are involved in bringing the children up. As usual, because I am a conservative, I'm for preserving the old things which have value. The pro gay marriage advocates are the extremists here.
So are you telling me that, as a conservative, you are for government being as small and limited as possible, except for dictating every aspect of your life that "has traditional value"?
Just the first part. I firmly believe in punishing malum in se, I'm very leary of malum prohibitum which I think would include the "every aspect of my life that has traditional value" you're concerned with. A small government as limited as possible would leave the vast majority of people alone which is what I want most from the feds. How about you?

So then what's malum in se about gay marriage?
Nothing, but the whole of what I wrote is the whole of my argument against changing the ancient definition of marriage. Thanks for commenting.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?