In response to Malach's rather odd rant about Gay Marriage.
Malach,
First of all, Massachusetts did not make gay marriage a law. A panel of judges decided to interpret the constituion in such a way to allow marriage between two partners of the same sex. They left it up to the elected body to amend the constitution to clarify it (as was proper). The legislature (which seems to have become more and more radical over time) has balked and refused to even consider the amendment. So, Romney did something else allowed by the constitution: he went to the people.
It doesn't matter who the 170,000 signatures were... they were in favor of constitutional action so that Boston didn't become the homosexual Las Vegas. The funny thing about democracy is: the majority still has a say.
As for the Gay Marriage issue, it is not a matter of civil rights. Same-sex marriage should not be framed as an adult civil right... because marriage is about family and child rearing. Studies over and over show that for a child to develop properly, he needs the influence of both a Mother and Father. Same-sex couples have been successful parents, but statistically they are no more effective than single-parent households at raising well-adjusted children.
So, legalizing Gay marriage is not just about civil rights. It is about protecting a centuries-old successful instituion that has been the basis of society... um... forever. This is not about descriminating against people who choose to practice homosexuality. It is about protecting the fundamental group unit of society (according to the Universal Declration of Human Rights): THE FAMILY. And, it is about protecting children by not legalizing and accepting a less-effective form of child rearing.
As for your reference to the civil rights movement for African Americans, that issue was not decided by the courts. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was past overwhelmingly by both parties. Opposition to the act was regional (with a majority of both Republicans and Democrats in the south). It WAS decided by popular vote. And, so far, the issue has been decided by a majority of states that have brought a measure to the ballot.
The problem with secular humanists these days is that they haven't been able to convince the masses that they aren't raving idiots. They sit in NY and LA and DC and MA and assume that everybody agrees with them. Well, I'm sorry: a loud minority is still a minority.
I'm sure you dislike Romney on this issue... but I can't agree with him more. I am all for basic human and civil rights for people who practice homosexuality. But, I will also stand firm that marriage is a basic and fundamental unit that should not be diluted or broken. Not only do I agree with what Romney was doing in Massachusetts, I agree with the way he frames the arguments: in terms of Child rights.
I'm glad the MA legislature finally fulfilled their duty and voted on it. If you hate the law, get out and try to convince people WHY you are right. But, don't go after Romney because he walks the walk.
That is all.
Horatio
Response to a Rant
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
Posted by Horatio at 9:39 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Nice a debate. Homosexuality is a practice accepted by a number of our early forefathers in Greece, Rome, and Persia. It is basically the Judiac Religions that have frowned upon homosexuality.
So here's the catch, this should not be based on religion, this country was founded upon freemason ideals.
Year ago one was not allowed to marry those of a opposite race, religion, or whatever and was seen as a abomination.
There are so many colors in the homo rainbow, don't be afriad to let them colors shine.
And by the way, Mitt Romney is the a liar, a conniver, and care nothing for the common man. This state is worse for his administration and will take several years to recover the "Reich of Romney" as it has come to be known.
This should be fun!
This makes my monkey hole itch.
"The funny thing about democracy is: the majority still has a say"
Here's the thing, kiddies. We don't live in a democracy. we live in a CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY. It is written in our constitution that discrimatatory laws are not to be passed or voted on, and that the minority is protected from the majority. It is written that we may not take the rights away from the minority. It was written for this very purpose.
In a CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY the authority of the majority is limited by legal and institutional means so that the rights of individuals and minorities are respected.
This debate reminds me "Bicentennial Man" movie.
Also, you say that this is not a matter of civil rights. You say marriage is about family and child rearing. What gave you that idea? That is your opinion of marriage and that is where the problem lies. Marriage is a commitment of 2 people to each other, and nothing more.
As for your ‘studies showing that a child needs a mother and a father’ I can say with confidence that these studies were considering children in a single parent household versus a 2 parent household, not a straight vs. gay household. What they have shown is that children develop better with 2 parents, not one (though, coming from a divorced family, and seeing how f’d up plenty of people with 2 parents are, I doubt the voracity of these studies).
Marriage has not been the basis of society forever. Sorry. Nope. You don’t get that either. Marriage is a concept, and became enmeshed with religion. And its religion that is having these issues with gay marriage today. Plain and simple discrimination. I live in a highly gay populated area. And what do I see? Families, happy healthy families with GAY parents. You don’t see this, so you don’t know.
Take your less effective form of child rearing to poor areas and ghettos, and watch how these people neglect and beat their children. Watch their children grow up to be thugs and degenerates. Actually go and look at the world. Try living in the city, and seeing how people outside of the middle to upper class live. Or the Midwest and the south. See your supposed effective form of child rearing. I’ll take 2 happy fags with kids anyday, because what I see around me in terms of poor straight families and how they treat and raise their kids disgusts me to no end.
Hey did you know that The Police are planning a reunion tour to mark the 30th anniversary release of Roxanne?
I think that is far more important that this silly gay debate.
Priorities, people! Priorities!
Yeah, they're talking about a reunion too!
looks like the almighty dollar wins again!!!
as long as Sting stops being an asshole and ditches the LUTE
Id go aftr Romney if he swishd a little more when he walkd th walk.
I agree, we talk about families. Well, beyond myslef and the Cap'n, who here has a what used to be "typical family". Both he and I have been married for more than 5 years, both have tow kids, and a big house in the suburbs.
That is no longer the normal American family. And yes it is ideal for children (I work for a non profit that specialize in homelessness, and the majority of our clients are single women with kids). So, would you rather a kid grow up in a loving gay family or in the ghetto with their crack addcited mom (which is more common that the nuclear family).
As for the Police, one of the most underrated bands of all time.
uhmmm I agree with Hobbs in the difference Btw Marriage & a Family...
Well "The family" now a days suffers and is fracture about parenting because they are the ones bearing children, you see they have more exposure to it (they have the kids naturaly), their failure to compale is about working, drugs, inmaturity,society problems, etc etc these facts will be no different in any human being meaning Gay's are not excent to fall into this either. The difference is that Gay marriage hasn't been too exposed yet...because of the law troubles around it.
What they say about children exposure to hetero marriage are better.... uhm well women (no matter how much they argue) are different than men, psycologically women tend to be way more emotionals & men tend to be way more objective so that creates a good balance for kids (in a good marriage)let me highlight, because kids are exposed to the feelings of the mother and the focus of the father, but all these fails if mom and Dada are uncapable to comply... but we talked about this above.
Why can't gays just marry the opposite sex like the rest of us. I'll even speculate they can still be gay, but just marry the opposite sex if they want to get marriage.
Let th LAW be HYPR-hetero: Let gays marry only straight fokes, n vice-versa!
Post a Comment