Same-sex Rhetoric & Miss America

Rhetoric is winning the day.

Lately when I hear public crossfire-type discussions on the issue of same-sex marriage—discussions that have filled the airwaves since the unfortunate incident at the Miss America pageant—traditional marriage wins on the merits, but the other side wins the rhetoric game.

It’s time we stop letting others frame the debate in terms of “tolerance,” “fairness,” “equality,” and “compassion,” in a way that pushes us into defense mode trying to neutralize the loaded language, but never really gaining any ground for our side.

The fact is, decent Americans are the ones being bullied here, citizens who are people of conscience, overflowing with tolerance in the classic sense, but are being pushed around and oppressed because they disagree with the extreme views of the minority.  Instead of making the case for traditional marriage, maybe we should also point out what's really going on behind the rhetoric that appeals to fairness and equality.

Let me tell you what’s really going on here.

Good people with honest differences with the Homosexual agenda are being bullied.

First, Americans are incredibly tolerant of homosexuality, especially considering the moral concerns lots of folks have with it.  Same-sex couples have been getting married for years in private ceremonies.  No one interferes, and no one should.

Americans are happy to give equal rights, and that is done virtually everywhere.  However, they do not want their arms twisted into approving something they do not think is good for America or for families.  That’s the real issue.

Think about it:  The government represents the people.  When the government steps in and gives its approval, it’s like the people are giving their approval. With a marriage license for same-sex couples, it’s the same as the people saying that same-sex relationships are exactly the same as heterosexual relationships. 

Some of those people do think that, but the vast majority of Americans do not—witnessed by the dozens of state referendums—and should not be forced to act like they do.

Miss California was bullied, and good, tolerant, compassionate Americans are being bullied, too.  Decent people around the country do not want that. 

Decent Americans who step out of line with political correctness are being punished simply for dissenting.

And they also don’t want to be punished for their views.  Miss California was clearly manipulated by a homosexual judge for his own political purposes.

Increasingly, homosexual rights extremists are repressing dissent and oppressing those who disagree with them.  More and more often, good people are being punished because they hold a different point of view—punished through name calling, punished through harassment, punished through public humiliation and intimidation (like Miss California after the pageant), punished through lawsuits, and even sometimes punished through the loss of their jobs (after Prop 8 passed in CA, for example).

Same-sex marriage is a strong-arm attempt of a minority to force public approval of homosexuality from a majority who doesn’t approve.

A marriage license does not confer any significant liberties that same-sex couples do not already have.  Instead, it is meant to give them what they’ve been demanding for a long time—complete, unqualified, unconditional, and undiminished, social approval. 

This is not about equal rights. It’s about public validation and social acceptance.  It’s about one group who has a minority view trying to use the law to force their views on other people who don’t agree with them.  If people want to celebrate same-sex unions, fine.  That’s their business.  Let them do that in private ceremonies, even religious ones if they can arrange them.  But the government shouldn’t get involved.  That basically gives broad cultural affirmation by government decree.

The insistence for same-sex marriage is about a radical attempt to alter the foundational institution of civilization by using government muscle to strong-arm the decent Americans into affirming a lifestyle and set of behaviors they does not, by and large, approve of, but are willing to tolerate as long as it is not forced on them.

The challenges, on balance, are empty and manipulative.

As to the charge, “That’s discrimination!,” I only note that it’s the same discrimination we make against polygamy.  The people are not going to endorse polygamy because they think it’s wrong, just as they think same-sex marriage is wrong.  Every argument for same-sex marriage is an argument for polygamy—and polyandry (multiple husbands), and polyamory (group marriage), etc. (get creative).  If not one, why not the other?

Same-sex marriage advocates must support polygamy, given their logic.  If they say, “That’s ridiculous,” I say, “You’re right.  It is ridiculous.  That’s my point.  Ridiculous conclusions follow from the reasoning same-sex marriage advocates present.”

This is not about redefining marriage.  This is about redefining civilization.

Comments

[Matthew]

It's interesting that you should mention polyamory. In 2005, when the Canadian government was considering gay marriage, one of the arguments against it was that it would logically lead to a legalization of polyamory as well.

Well, gays have been allowed to marry for four years in Canada, and we're now facing a constitutional challenge against the prohibition on polyamory. Legal experts predict that the Supreme Court will strike down the law, leading to legalization.

And you know what? That's OK. People find love and fulfillment in a variety of relationships, and if they want to formally recognize those relationships in marriage, then why should anyone object? Prohibition has no place in a free society.

[Daniel Wynne]

"Prohibition has no place in a free society. "

Prohibition of what? What about prohibition of beating people up because they're gay? What about prohibition of spousal abuse? Child abuse? Child molestation? Torture? Embezzlement? Murder? Identity theft?

If 'family' is defined by nature, then it is a heterosexual couple and whatever kids they produce (with exceptions.) If it is defined by popular vote, then it is STILL a heterosexual couple, etc.

[David Hawkins]

Matthew,

>>"And you know what? That's OK. People find love and fulfillment in a variety of relationships, and if they want to formally recognize those relationships in marriage, then why should anyone object?"

Is it okay for me to marry my mom if my dad is dead...since we would find love and fulfillment?

Or I might find that same "love and fulfillment" with a nine year old..." You OK with that too? (Even if he/she's a relative of yours?)

What if your dog run's away...finds my house and I feed it and take care of it...and subsequently find love and fulfillment with Fido?

You OK with your government approving any of these marriage efforts?

Before you say any of these are absurd or disgusting, remember its only a matter of time...as I can use activism to perpetuate approval of one or all of these in due time.

It's working with sodomy.

What say you, Matthew?

[Matthew]

David,

I don't think it should be illegal for you to marry your mother.

I do think it should be illegal for you to marry someone who cannot give legal consent. This includes children and animals.

[Matthew]

Daniel,

From the context, I had hoped it was clear that I was referring to prohibition of unconventional marriage. Now that you ask, however, I will say that prohibition of any consensual act has no place in a free society. Your examples all involve non-consenting parties.

You give two possible sources for a definition of 'family.' But why can't 'family' be defined by the individual?

[CT]

Speaking of rhetoric:

"This is not about redefining marriage. This is about redefining civilization."

Greg, why do you claim that no one should interfere with private ceremonies for same-sex marriage? If the “homosexual agenda” is threatening to “alter the foundational institution of civilization” through immoral unions, why shouldn’t one interfere?

"Think about it: The government represents the people. When the government steps in and gives its approval, it’s like the people are giving their approval."

Perhaps you should distinguish between permitting and approving. Does the fact that heterosexuals are permitted to marry in this country mean that you approve of every such marriage?

[Nathan Rose]

Matthew, this is not about prohibition but rather celebration. As Greg pointed out, homosexual couples are free to marry as they like, but for society to celebrate these relationships with the endorsement of marriage is a different issue.

Greg, awesome article. This is timely and very well put. I have been surprised and saddened by the vitriolic rhetoric making the news this week. I just hope that the contrast will help clarify the weakness of the position. You and STR are a shining light of winsome reasoning. Keep up the good work!

[Mo]

Great article, except for one thing.

I would love to pass this along, but the same-sex marriage supporters that I know would have a problem with the word 'decent' being used several times. They will take offense as though we are saying they are not decent people as well.

I realize that's not what is being said here. But that's the way they will take it, and not hear anything else that is being said.

[Matthew]

Nathan,

In most states, homosexual couples are not free to get married.

I'm not sure how allowing them to get married requires society to 'celebrate' their marriage. It does require society to recognize the marriage, but that doesn't mean you have to like it.

[Drew]

Perhaps, "celebrate" isn't the right word.

When the government sanctions the "marriage" of homosexuals, it is saying that such relationships are good, normal and wholesome and should be encouraged.

[Stephen Hawking]

Question:

Is thier ANY, any whatsoever, significant logical difference between same-sex marriage and polygamy? Aside from Numerical value?

[Matthew]

Drew,

No, when the government makes same-sex marriage legal, it is saying that it is legal for people of the same sex to get married.

[Stephen Hawking]

But matthew, I dont think you would disagree with the notion that what the government "Ok's" bears weight on an individuals moral compass

[David Hawkins]

Drew said:
"When the government sanctions the "marriage" of homosexuals, it is saying that such relationships are good, normal and wholesome and should be encouraged."

Matthew said:
"No, when the government makes same-sex marriage legal, it is saying that it is legal for people of the same sex to get married."

Matthew,
I must say your response is a tremendous relief for me and many others. If I happen to be the private owner of a Bed & Breakfast, for example, I will not be expected to condone a homosexual marriage and contradict the convictions of my conscience by allowing them to use my facility. Right? ...since homosexual marriage only impacts homosexuals. I don't have to worry about offending them, getting sued, defending my convictions in courts, and tying up my family's finances in a legal defense or anything like that. Whew, for a second there, I thought the government-sanction of homosexual marriage meant that homosexuals could now use the law to bully people into accepting their lifestyle.

I am relieved that if homosexual marriage is government-sanctioned, I, as a private citizen, do NOT have to sanction it as a private business owner. All this time I was under the impression homosexual marriage really would impact everyone else.

[CT]

After we've done what we can to accommodate the freedoms of each person and to guarantee the rights of all, there will still be some who cannot get along with others. There is no guarantee that everyone's religion will allow him or her to live, work, and cooperate with others in a pluralistic society. There may come a point in which some, for the sake of religion, find it necessary to set out like pilgrims of old, in search of places where they might establish "bed and breakfasts" that discriminate against gays and lesbians. They may judge such exile to be the cost of following Christ.

We must allow these few to leave in peace. May they find a suitable non-liberal country elsewhere. Though many (including many Christians) will regard them as unreasonable, I will respect their fortitude.

[David Hawkins]

CT, (sorry so long)

(I couldn't allow an UNmarried heterosexual couple to spend the night either.)

I am not sure I have ever read a more eloquently articulated fascist prose. You are suggesting freedom is presently impeded, yet you are genuinely willing to infringe on the freedoms of others because they hold to a particular standard of behavior and do not morally condone a particular sex act. So you force submission with the gavel, strip their freedom to think independantly, or otherwise silence them altogether because they disagree with your point of view. I think you are taking this in a rather unfortunate - and dangerous - direction. As well, you, I believe, are vastly underestimating those who hold to traditional family values in this nation by asserting we will simply cling to our convictions and walk away in solemn silence. You don't understand that to simply leave would mean we have abandoned those convictions. It is those very convictions and "fortitude" that will stay us.)

Your assessment of the future is rather utopian, insofar that anyone who does not goose-step with a liberal point of view is branded "bigot" and must succumb to fascist law, or else limp away "in exile."

We were not able to exist as a country that had both free states and slave states. But neither side was entertaining the idea to "find it necessary to set out like pilgrims of old." Those who opposed the enslavement of their fellow man (lead by Christian conviction and principle) did defeat those whose moral compass had gone awry and would see their fellow man enslaved. It was just a shame it had to come to bloodshed. Cooler heads did not prevail.

The nobility of your tenor would be inspiring if not for its pretentious presuppositions (that someone's leaving.) Please do not make the mistake of underestimating the resilience & longevity of truth.

A people's refusal to succumb to the indoctrination of a small group's efforts to gain blanket approval for a particular sex act will not result in any exodus, but rather a confrontation.

>> "We must allow these few to leave in peace."

Three mistakes here:

1. The presumption of "few"
2. The presumption that someone's leaving.
3. The presumption that the future is going to be peaceful.

>>"There is no guarantee that everyone's religion will allow him or her to live, work, and cooperate with others in a pluralistic society."

Yes, there is such guarantee. Infact, a covenant. One familiar with the tenets of Christ's teaching would know this (but following Christ is not a "religious" endeavor, so I will grant you some slack with various religions)
Biblical Christianity guarantees it. In fact, we are called to be in the world, but not of the world. We cannot be salt and light otherwise. So the real ones are here to stay (that's the result of fortitude...not flight.) Right this very minute, we are here...living, working, and cooperating with others in this increasingly pluralistic society.

Here is your assertion written without the error:

"There is no guarantee that everyone's sexual proclivities will allow him or her to live, work, and cooperate with others in a pluralistic society."

Perhaps the chief blunder in your assessment is to purport that anyone's rights are being stifled at present. A particular homosexual's ability to marry is no more impeded than mine or anyone else's. The same limits on who or what I can have a government-sanctioned marriage with are the same as everyone's. As a man, for it to be marriage, I must couple with a woman. If I were a woman, a man.
Because one has a proclivity towards a particular sexual act (that the majority of the nation finds immoral) does not indicate a loss nor absence of a "marriage right". You see, CT, the homosexual "marriage" issue is not about marriage at all. Since there is no such thing as marriage between something other than man and woman, it can't be about marriage. The real goal is about the acquisition of approval by everyone. And since sexual behavior is not a morally benign character trait like race, gender, or ethinicity, their is going to be disagreement.

May grace shine upon you.

[Rich Bordner]

Greg's first thought was the exact thought I had in reaction to the Prager/Hilton discussion on Larry King Live. Most in our culture are very familiar with Hilton's rhetoric. It's the stuff the current young generation is being brought up on. Therefore, though Prager's arguments were good, I think they largely fell on deaf ears.

[Brett]

Though I, as a christian, do not agree with homosexuality, I do have to put aside my religious views when speaking on an issue concerning people who want nothing to do with God. it sucks that people have their ears closed toward any form of religion but that is reality. and since they don't want anything to do with a relationship like the one i have with God, i can't force my views onto them because i have nothing on their views except to say that it's morally wrong according to my religion. unfortunately, in that regard, this country was not founded on christianity but on a religious freedom to worship, if they choose to be a homosexual agnostic, then i can't force anything different on them other than to show my love to them as a christian and what a relationship with God has to offer. and i can do that with persistancy but all i can do is plant a seed. one can plant, another can water, but only God can grow. i don't have to accept their lifestyle but i need to accept them as a person. I think that lots of christians all over the world have lost touch with the reminder that one of the 2 greatest commandments is to love your neighbor as you love yourself. and when anyone in this world sins (because we all do) you should love the person and hate what they do, because that will keep the love that Jesus thrived on showing to all people.

[CT]

David Hawkins,

From reading your response I suspect that we might agree on quite a lot. For example, I think we can agree on all of the following:

(a) People should have “freedom think independently.”
(b) There are many who hold “traditional family values.”
(c) People can disagree with liberalism without being bigots.
(d) Truth has “resilience” and “longevity”
(e) Many Christians find it possible to respectfully live, work and cooperate with others in pluralistic societies.

I also quite understand, however, that religion can lead a person to hold peculiar views about what he or she must do, activities which a society might disallow upon reasonable grounds. You might find yourself in this situation. If you do, you might first consider distinguishing between permitting a behavior because the fair terms of cooperation require you to do so, and endorsing the behavior itself. With regard to the bed-and-breakfast, you might distinguish serving sinners in compliance with anti-discrimination laws, and endorsing the sins themselves.

It is, of course, conceivable that a person’s religion might disallow him from recognizing this distinction. In that case, your religion might require you to either to find a non-liberal society or to simply find an occupation that allows you to adhere to both the laws of the land and your own religion. One cannot reasonably expect to reap all the benefits of living and working in a pluralistic society while disregarding the fair terms of cooperation of that society.

[Drew]

In a pluralistic society, we expect tolerance. Homosexuality is tolerated. Homosexuals can do their thing and nobody gets in the way.

But granting marriage isn't about tolerance since homosexuality already has tolerance. And it's certainly not about rights, especially in California where they've got all that granted in homosexual unions.

Homosexual "marriage" is about acceptance. It's about societal endorsement of homosexuality. I can't blame homosexuals for wanting acceptance. They want to think of their behavior as good and normal.

It's obvious to me that homosexuality is neither good nor worthy of acceptance. Our biology makes it plain that women go with men. It's also plain that society has a deep interest in the family bonds related to child bearing.

Perhaps, someone can explain to me why i should accept homosexuality and therefore support homosexual "marriage".

[a friend of STR]

Is it wrong for 2 couples to consent to swapping spouses for sex whenever they feel like it?

[Garry Sahl]

The liberal-minded BC TEACHERS FEDERATION with the help of the BC Liberal governments have imposed and promoted May 14 as homofobia week to our kids in BC Public Schools.With the legalization of homosexual marriage come government and Supreme Court impositions to normalize homosexuality.

Many "innocent" BC school kids don't even know what homofobia is!

I believe it is a word invented by people who are afraid of heterosexuals,so they can brainwash our kids to accept their lifestyle and worldview with its presuppositions. Even in spite of the fact that,according to the Health Canada HIV and AIDS in Canada Surveillance Report on page 60 we read that 85 percent of AIDS in Canada is in males who have sex with males. Gay bowel syndrom,is a well documented collection of bowel diseases that lead to the mechanical dysfunction of the lower bowel tract.These include amebiasis,giardasis,salmonellosis, hepatitis A and B,tuberculosis,sypilis etc. These are ENDemic in the homosexual population. Not healthy or normal is it? This certainly is not just another healthy alternative lifestyle like it is now taught to children in BC pubic schools. In most nations Sodomy is still illegal, but because of our Supreme Court and liberal governments it is legal in Canada today.

Our "innocent" kids won't be "innocent" very long in our BC public schools.

Our liberal-minded governments have introduced laws and policies that stop thinking teachers, from speaking out against and putting a stop to this and other government and court impositions!

THE BC TEACHERS FEDERATION and the liberal governments should not be afraid of heterosexuals and both seem to have heterofobia. And I also don't like the Kinsey sex-education imposed on our kids as healthy and normal and it ought to also be scrapped. Kinsey's thesis called,"Outlet Sex",placed all sexual acts on the same moral,social and biological level whether in or out of wedlock, between two people of the same sex or opposite sex,or even when sex involved children or animals. Kinsey declared, "The Kinsey Reports",were "science" and have since been used in our universities to teach teachers sex education,and from them BC public school children. This is BS,that is Bad Science and ought to be scrapped! What say you citizens of the so-called free Western world?

[CT]

Drew,

Religious belief is wonderfully diverse. Imagine a religious group, call them Kristians, who view interracial intercourse as an abominable sin, contrary to God's revealed plan. These Kristians oppose interracial marriage on the grounds interracial "civil unions" are an option. They insist that if their state allows interracial marriages, this forces them--against their religion--to accept/endorse interracial intercourse.

Though you probably think that Kristians are mistaken regarding their beliefs about interracial intercourse (just like you might think that Islam is substantively mistaken) how would you respond to their objection to interracial marriage?

[Drew]

CT, i haven't used religion as a defense of my position, so you're posing a nice strawman.

In addition, you've ignored my points. You may look back and see that i noted that human biology tells us that men are built for women. Therefore, your comparison of "homosexual marriage" to inter-racial marriage doesn't work.

Also, the race of those getting married is irrelevent to the State's interest in a stable environment for the raising of children.

"how would you respond to their objection to interracial marriage?"

i would respond by saying that let's put the best arguments on the table and make the best judgement based on the evidence. Based on the evidence, marriage for homosexuals should be a losing proposition.

[Bill Me]

The Church should remain separate from the State. However, when it comes to divorces, the State should remain separate from the Churches. In other words, the Church could sanction, or not sanction State arranged marriages, but the State could sanction, or not sanction Church arranged divorces. Why not keep separations of Church and State as a freedom FROM State sponsored religion AND at the same time allow the State to provide more protections for society than otherwise the Church alone could not. For example: why not ask the State to enforce blood tests for ALL marriages AND for ALL divorces and any partnerships which caused either marriages OR divorces (all for greater good and protection from the plagues which continue to spread thereby)

[CT]

Drew,

It sounds like you want to avoid building your case on freedoms of conscience/religion. I'm happy to push these issues to the side and consider your argument from biology and "the interests of society". You've mentioned your argument; please fill in the details (as I suspect that you might be aware of some of the obvious objections to it).

As you construct your argument, consider a parallel case:

Suppose that someone makes the case that people with genetic deformity should not be allowed to marry. They argue that (1) marriage is about procreation, (2) "biology" opposes the reproduction of deformities in a species, and (3) allowing a deformed person to marry is against the larger interests of society.

If you reject this person's argument, the challenge for you will be to use the same grounds (biology and the interests of society) to present case against same-sex marriage which is stronger than the case that this person can make.

[Drew]

CT, i'll buy that it is in society's interest to prohibit deformed people from procreating. The problem is that the right to procreate is pre-governmental. Human rights, like the (negative)right to procreate naturally, cannot be denied. Government's purpose is to protect these types of Natural Rights.

"...[T]o secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..." -- Declaration of Independence.

Even if it is in society's interest to force sterilize morons, it would be illegitimate to do so.

Therefore, there is no parallel here with society's interest in maintaining traditional marriage.

[CT]

Drew, from where are you getting this "right to procreate"? Are you getting it from "biology" or from the "interests of society"? Or, are you now introducing something new? Please explain.

And please still try to articulate that argument of yours from biology and the interests of society.

[Drew]

I only discussed the right to procreate in response to the parallel that you offered.

The discussion of polygamy or marriage for homosexuals makes me contemplate the purpose of marriage in the first place. What's the point of marriage? This article (http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/viewarticle.php?selectedarticle=2009.04.24.001.pdart) makes the following point:

The essential purpose of marriage is to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another. Absent this purpose, we would not need marriage as a distinct social institution.

[CT]

Drew, I read the article. I find it difficult to believe that Morse's argument will be found compelling by anyone but the uncritical, or who isn't already convinced of her thesis. To me her paper reads like a hastily constructed undergraduate's essay written in the blind fury of zeal. It isn't worthy of a serious response.

I guess I am this moment so disappointed by the quality of argumentation (from the folks like Morse and Koukl, who are supposed to be providing some intellectual leadership), that I am going to call it quits for a spell. Please continue to test your ideas against the patient critics who frequent this blog (As good as the STR folks are at some things, it doesn't appear that they are currently interested in helping their fans to cultivate the virtue of honest self-scrutiny). I still think this blog is a wonderful opportunity for dialogue. Best wishes.

[Step]

CT, I'm rather disappointed to see you cop-out of the discussion without even a decent effort at refutation.

I initially was going to agree with your comment about the article - the first 3 paragraphs, at least, gave me this impression as well. However the final paragraphs do wrap up a specific argument. You haven't dealt with this very direct claim at all, I don't think. Do you deny the implicit biological claim that it takes a mother and a father to create a child? Do you deny the continued claim that care from both these parties is in the best interest of the state?

[Miki]

Hmm. I have had the problems of considering Gay marriage, and I've come to a conclusion after much thought.

I AM a Christian, and as such I think gay relationships, married or otherwise, are a sin, are wrong, but that's not how I argue against making gay marriage legal. The way I see it is this: Is there a God that defines moral behaviors of right and wrong, or is there not? If there is then we should spend time finding out who that God is and what he wants from us before we tackle this issue (and virtually all others), which sadly most do not, even Christians. If God does not exist then all the arguments for and against, are made equal. "gay relationships are OK," and "gay relationships are wrong" have the same value.

I think that to argue the second way would be best to make people understand that their argument collapses. If evolution happened then you could perhaps say "Gay marriage is OK," in the same way that "anything is OK." Well you may view it as "ok" in the sense that it has no moral inclination, but is it useful? Without a higher law, then every action must come down to it's usefulness, and homosexuality has none. Throwing another person out of the way of a car, is not useful. Giving money to the poor is also useless. If gay relationships (to say nothing of unions) can't produce anything useful, then the point should be moot on making gay marriage legal, because from a usefulness perspective, it has already proven it has none. Nobody should be compelled to even care about this issue, in this case, and the fact that many people do (not just including gays) says something.

There is one other point, and it has do with Christianity, and why it should fight gay marriage, but not hate gays, the two are different things. Marriage is a religious institution. It started in religion, so in my view, religion has a certain right to it. Christianity wants Marriage to be Right in the eyes of God, and lawful/sanctioned in the eyes of men, that way, nobody would be able to say "you are sinning," to the Christian couple married in a church but not has a license from the Government.

That said, where do gays get married? In a church, or by a preacher. They want to be recognized as normal, as lawful, and good in their union. That's why they push gay "marriage" and not "union." Is it fair, to push all mention of religion out of schools, offices, and the public square, pushing the envelope of separation of church and state, and then turn around and say, that marriage, something created from religion, is simply none of religion's business?

If a person is made to never be able to speak out against or for something because their morals compel them too because it is a dissent from the majority, then...well, I'm sure you can imagine.

[Chris Billups]

"Prohibition has no place in a free society. "

...so prohibition is..prohibited in a free society?

**worldview failure**

[Sage S.]

CT,

Leaving a discussion because "no one here is self-critical" is a patently false claim. Just stop answering, or ask for clarification. Don't give a bogus dismissal.

CT wrote, "I also quite understand, however, that religion can lead a person to hold peculiar views about what he or she must do, activities which a society might disallow upon reasonable grounds."

Sexual orientation can also lead a person to hold (etc. etc.). Our society right now today does in fact disallow homosexuality and same-sex marriage upon reasonable grounds. Being pluralistic and accepting, we tolerate what we disagree with.

Any conviction "can lead people to do" things the majority of society sees as wrong. Environmentalism, animal rights advocacy, liberalism, conservatism, globalism - any cause someone invests in can lead them to do strange things to advance their agenda.

Right now the only strange, disallowed activists are clearly in the same-sex marriage ilk (like the judge on the Miss USA show). The rest of us who rationally disallow homosexuality and ssm are being treated to the rantings and slander of a vocal, INTOLERANT minority.

That's hypocritical.

[bw]

interestingly the only person who was hate-filled and angry was the judge himself. his rant on you tube was evil. at least miss california was gracious in her response to a lude question. meanwhile miss south carolina gets a geography pop quiz? wow what weird world we live in.

[bw]

and besides who here in america does not support a persons right to be gay? as a christian i totally support a gay to be as gay as possible. but do not expect me to approve of it. i am entitled to my belief that it is immoral. just look at the judge on you tube and ask who is the bigoted fanatical person in the sordid saga of twisted evil posing as tolerance. God have mercy on this poor country. we have become morally bankrupt.

[Anon]

Chris Billups:
""Prohibition has no place in a free society. "

"...so prohibition is..prohibited in a free society?

"**worldview failure**"

Such blatantly uncharitable interpretations of post are what most annoy me about STR's blog.

God is the creator of all that is, seen and unseen.
God is, that is, God exists, and he is unseen.
God is not the creator of himself.

Worldview failure? Only on an uncharitable interpretation of what I wrote. Anyone familiar with Christianity wouldn't, if acting charitably, interpret the first line in the strict way needed to generate the worldview failure.

I suggest that the same charity be used in interpreting "Prohibition has no place in a free society."

And furthermore, I suggest that the same charity be used in every post to STR.

They will know we are Christians by our charity.

[Bastion]

I know I'm a little late to the party, but, it is what it is...

So from the companion piece to this on the radio, I'm sorry but claiming that the "gay agenda" is winning a rhetorical war because of phrases like "traditional marriage" is just a blatant misrepresentation of history. The "gay agenda" did not coin the term -- religious activists did.

And for an interesting overview of what "traditional" marriage really was, read this article based upon a marriage history.

Some key points: polygamy is not only in the Judeo-Christian tradition, it is/was pretty much a global phenomenon. Also, marriage traditionally was more about wealth, power, and alliances than about religion or love. I mean, where do you think a dowry comes from? A poor family with no money for a dowry may not have been able to even marry off their daughters.

And the idea that permission equals endorsement, and that all citizens must also endorse it, is another fallacy. When inter-racial marriages were first permitted, was there still considerable intolerance for it? What about when school integration was "forced" on its unwilling citizenry? There is a push and pull between the tyranny of the minority and the tyranny of the majority. But when it comes to civil rights, the tyranny of the majority needs to lose.

And this is a civil rights issues. Another fallacy is that gays today can "create" a marriage-like quasi-legal construct, but this is just not true. And not only is the legal expense to create the approximation unfair, some authorities will still choose to ignore it. Of course one can contest that authority in court, but there are occasions where time is of the essence (like say in health care situation) and to put people in that predicament is grossly unjust.

The fact of the matter is that our country is not the United Christian States of America. Other cultures and religions have different definitions of marriage than the "traditional", Christian (mind you, and ironically, modern) definition of marriage. This is OK, and we need to find a path beyond this.

Why shouldn't the Mormons or any other tradition of polygamy be allowed? Today's polygamy (or polyandry) would not be like our ancestors'. As long as all parties can legally consent, do consent, and are legally protected in the marriage, who cares?!?!?

In today's two-parent, two-income families that are barely making enough to get by, and don't have enough time to actively participate (drive?) the raising of their own children, why not let people set up the family structure that they think will be successful?

Again, it is not a religious thing -- it is a societal and ethical thing. And it is in society's best interest to have successful families -- whatever they look like.

I am gay (surprise, surprise) and have a very successful family. My partner and I will celebrate 20 years together this autumn, and we have two bright, happy, well-adjusted children that are adored by their extended family, friends, neighbors, and teachers. The only problem: we can't get married in our state, and even if we could there are still more than 1,000 federal rights and responsibilities that would not be conferred (read).

I don't want to force any church to marry us. I don't want to force any business to provide us accommodations that are not mandated by law (e.g. emergency medical services). I just want to know that my family is safe, and to not have to wade through several miles of red tape just to get a small fraction of that safety.

And isn't that some common ground we can stand on together: keeping more families safe and strong?

[Bastion]

Sorry, I thought the URLs were going to work in the post above, but alas...

Anyway, here they are, in order of appearance:

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34099.html

http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm

[Bastion]

PS -- for an example of authorities choosing to ignore legal documents, we actually have a first-hand account:

Our daughters were born in Texas, while we live elsewhere. Our state issued adoption documents making us both their legal parents, and under any other circumstance when those papers are forwarded to the state of the child's birth, they issue a corrected birth certificate with the adopted parents' names.

The original still exists, so it is not like the child's initial birth records are wiped out and a birth mother would no longer be identifiable.

However, while W. was still governor of the state, and already firing up his state-sponsored religion, he gave into a minority special interest and the law in Texas states that no birth certificate may be issued without a mother's name -- even a corrected one (now I could understand this applying to the original birth certificate, but of course that was not how it was worded because it was meant to be an attack on gay families).

So, we don't have corrected birth certificates that show my partner's name, and we have to carry extra documents with us when we travel, and register for school, etc. because we never know when some other authority is going to choose not to respect our family structure, which was already legally granted by a court.