From where I stand, it looks like the progressive/democrat position states: If you believe marriage means a husband and wife, you are not just wrong, you are downright wicked and deserve to have your home address put up on the internet so strangers can harass you. I think the pro-marriage side is going to have to demonstrate an ongoing capacity to organize far more effectively before the gay-marriage juggernaut is going to be looking for a way to compromise.
(Possibly) Related posts:
Tags: gay marriage
-
Gotta love the straw men replete in anything you get from the NRO.
-
This coming from the guy whose defense of traditional marriage on Daily Kos provoked such an outcry that he felt it was best to delete it?
What’s your disagreement that you just casually dismiss as “straw men”?
Maybe it doesn’t seem like a big deal to you but when belief in traditional marriage is now commonly equated with homophobia, I don’t see what’s wrong with the above assessment.
I think it’s apparent that many if not most gay marriage activists are not interested in compromise or accommodating religious freedom.
-
I don’t think you’re posting a strawman, i think that you’re absolutely correct. However, i also think that you’re only presenting half of the story–if you were being complete, you’d also have to include: And from where I stand, it looks like the conservative/republican position states: If you believe marriage can include two men or two women, you are not just wrong, you are downright wicked and deserve to have your home address put up on the internet so strangers can harass you.
(The last sentence of your post was actually amusing, since “pro-marriage” is multiply ambiguous. But it’s okay, because you meant pro-marriage as meaning that anybody who wants to get married should be allowed to, right?)
-
The real strawman, David B, is yours.
Not even a slim majority of Mormons or conservatives has posted or suggested posting the addresses of gay people in hopes of retaliation. We’re simply defending the definition of marriage that has suited humanity for the at least the last 6000 years.The question, is why is there such a double standard? Why is it OK to promote violence against conservatives but if the situation was reversed, there’d be hell to pay? Imagine me collecting the addresses via facebook for every gay person I know and telling kooky evangelicals “take care of it?” There’d be an outrcry from the entire gay community! Neither should happen, but why the gay community is ok harrasing others only sharpens the sense that there’s something wrong in their heads…
-
Unless you are going to include the names of the progressives or whoever you say is calling for action against conservatives, it’s hard to take you seriously. How many so-called progressives are saying this, advocating this? Who are they? And why should an entire political tradition be obliged to identify with what some idiot says? Do all conservatives march in lockstep behind that weirdo, Glenn Beck, every time he opens his mouth? Of course not. If a Mormon writer or moviemaker produces something that is highly political or even incredibly stupid, why should we all be lumped in with him or her? I would argue the same holds true for political extremists regardless of party or political philosophy.
-
“We’re simply defending the definition of marriage that has suited humanity for the at least the last 6000 years.” NOYDMB; you are simply and completely wrong here, as a simple perusal of, say, the OT should clue you into. Polygamy, remember? My ancestors practiced it; it’s also the most common incarnation (when counting cultures) not one man one woman. The Jews (in Europe) only gave it up in the 11th century AD, for example. Plus, if you’re currently in North America, the Native American tradition, stretching back back back beyond the horizon includes gay marriage pretty much universally. Read up on the Berdache/two spirits.
6 comments
Comments feed for this article
Trackback link: http://asoftanswer.com/2009/02/23/gay-marriage-state-of-play/trackback/