We need both rank-and-file Democrats and those wishing to be leaders to take a stand for traditional values and against (among other things) gay marriage.
We especially need to de-link the idea that liberal=support for gay rights.
A fair-minded person can rationally be against gay rights and still be 100% for the Democratic party.
In my essay:
Democrats against Gay marriage
I lay out my general approach.
Some people left comments, and I wish to address each and every serious one.
Here's an example:
It's very interesting that you provide rational reasons for all of your positions except those you take against gay rights. You say some are born that way, some choose it. What is your evidence? You say this will damage traditional relationships? What is your evidence? My partner of 29 years and I are denied over 1000 Federal Civil Rights. If we marry, exactly how would that hurt your hetero relationship? Provide facts or we just have to assume it's about irrational hate. What's the reason? American people aren't ready. They weren't ready for black civil rights or for inter-racial marriage either.
December 25, 2009 8:36 AM
"Some are born that way, some choose it".
First of all, I'm using common sense. People are either born gay, choose it, or have a propensity for it and can develop under certain circumstances. Allowing for some combination, those are the choices. Second of all, there are numerous examples of people who "felt" gay all their life, while also numerous people who became "curious" later in life. The problem with this topic is that the radical left has tried to say it's their way (born) or else "you are hateful".
To complicate all of this, there are bisexuals and transgendered individuals. These people can represent every possible permuation. Bottom line, it really doesn't matter from my viewpoint because we all have traits, preferences, urges, etc. that society (rightfully) discourages to one degree or another. It doesn't matter the origin.
"My Partner and I have been married"...."how does that hurt anyone else"
We the people through our government and in civil society have the right to define right from wrong, good/bad, normal/strange, etc. Every society has to do as such to survive and succeed.
The argument here is whether we should take something from the "strange","perverse", "abnormal", "bad" category and make it "good". I say no. The promotion of homosexuality as normal, which gay marriage does, sends a message to young people that their main purpose isn't to procreate.
If a normal boy (maybe my son) can learn from society that it's ok for him to grow up and be with another boy, then he would be ending his biological lineage. That hurts me because I live through my children, and their children. Of course some would argue for "hi-tech", surogacy, and other means, but I'm arguing from natural law, normal logic, and a normal life.
It is offensive to me to have perverted relationships paraded as normal. If a mom and daughter "fell in love" and had a romantic relationship, the same question could be asked of me or you. For you to be consistent, you would have to say incest is fine. Gay incest is fine. Because after all how does it hurt you?
For me, it hurts me because it is wrong. It is disgusting. It promotes the breakdown of society.
Likewise, when gender roles get confused, we all suffer. When we attack the legitimacy of societal rules, we potentially undermine all of them. That's why to do so, the reason can't be for personal gain, it needs to be bigger than yourself. It is the weakest and cheapest of arguments to say, "what about me"? The reason being, almost anything can be argued from a positive point of view.
Lastly, we all have "normal food" we eat. Even vegetarians accept that most people eat (certain animal flesh). As a society we claim this as good. Beef. Chicken. Pork. Fish. etc. That is a traditional values. Yet, I could list 4 other animals that would be offensive, bad, wrong, perverse, and strange for someone to eat their flesh. We have that right to define ourselves.
Otherwise, any individual's preference that doesn't directly impact you would be allowed. That would ultimately lead to a divisive society that would eventually implode or explode.
I'm not worried about public opinion. I'm trying to promote what is right. The comparison to African Americans is fundamentally flawed, and incorrect. As an A.A., it is offensive. I find it shameful.
A person can be gay, and choose to be celebate. That kind of person has been in America since it's founding. They haven't been discriminated against. They were "in the closet". Our country discriminates against gay behavior. We have every right to do that. A.A.'s were discriminated against because of who we are. It wasn't a matter of behaving one way or another. It was a matter of being.
How can you define a whole person based on their sexual activity? You can't. Yet that's what the equation of gays = blacks does. A.A.'s were defined that way by others. There's no comparison.