« Reply #130 on: April 30, 2012, 07:50:24 PM »
So the article says that gay marriage should be opposed because the concept helps the Democrats? I will be certain to mention this to my gay Republican friends. Perhaps they did not receive the memo.
The last two paragraphs sum it up neatly. The author is a gay "libertarian" BTW.
It is a stupid fight.
The legal issues are secondary to social acceptance, at the point of the states guns if necessary. If they win they lose, you don't gain acceptance through the force of the state.
But the legislative agenda of the modern gay-rights movement is not meant to be useful to the gay person in the street: it is meant to garner support from heterosexual liberals and others with access to power. It is meant to assure the careers of aspiring gay politicos and boost the fortunes of the left wing of the Democratic Party. The gay-marriage campaign is the culmination of this distancing trend, the reductio ad absurdum of the civil rights paradigm.
The modern gay-rights movement is all about securing the symbols of societal acceptance. It is a defensive strategy, one that attempts to define homosexuals as an officially sanctioned victim group afflicted with an inherent disability, a disadvantage that must be compensated for legislatively. But if “gay pride” means anything, it means not wanting, needing, or seeking any sort of acceptance but self-acceptance. Marriage is a social institution designed by heterosexuals for heterosexuals: why should gay people settle for their cast-off hand-me-downs?
« Last Edit: April 30, 2012, 07:57:36 PM by Ron »
For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity, that they may be without excuse. Because knowing God, they didn’t glorify him as God, and didn’t give thanks, but became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.
