Let's hear it for prejudice
"The opponents (of same-sex marriage) have no case other than ignorance and misconception and prejudice."
So writes Richard Cohen in his celebratory column about Gov. Andrew Cuomo's role in legalizing gay marriage in New York state.
Now, given that no nation in 20 centuries of Christendom legalized homosexual marriage and, in this century, majorities in all 31 states where it has been on the ballot have rejected it, Cohen is pretty much saying that, since the time of Christ, Western history has been an endless Dark Age dominated by moral ignoramuses and bigots.
For the belief that homosexuality is unnatural and immoral and same-sex marriage an Orwellian absurdity has always been part of the moral code of Christianity. Gen. George Washington ordered active homosexuals drummed out of his army. Thomas Jefferson equated homosexuality with rape. Not until 2003 did the Supreme Court declare homosexual acts a protected right.
What is the moral basis of the argument that homosexuality is normal, natural and healthy? In recent years, it has been associated with high levels of AIDS and enteric diseases, and from obits in gay newspapers, early death. Where is the successful society where homosexual marriage was normal? (Read the rest.)
There's prejudice out there all right, but it's liberal prejudice against those who defend traditional values. They will do everything they can to shut us up -- call us homophobic hate mongers, get us fired, sue us for daring to follow our consciences, etc. We cannot be silent about homosexuality because, ultimately, special rights for those calling sodomy a civil right will effect everything about our lives. Here's another story of tolerant homosexuals getting someone fired for expressing his moral views OUTSIDE THE WORKPLACE! Of course, if you favor "gay marriage" maybe you don't mind discrimination against those who disagree with you. But isn't that bigoted, intolerant, and hateful?
You know I see it this way: It is immoral to push an agenda (except on YOUR blog) onto others. Even if you are right. I understand your opinion. You have every right to live that way. You don't have the right to impose on the civil liberties of others.
ReplyDeleteSigned,
A liberal non-hater
Are you serious? I'm confused? How do you define "agenda?" And how do you define "civil liberties?"
ReplyDeleteAm I to understand that you think the homosexuals who got Frank Turek fired DIDN'T have an agenda and what they did was okay? How was that not imposing their "agenda" on him? What about His civil liberties?
Anon this is a democracy. Voters rule. In this government black panthers with bats impose or the governor's ho's brother imposes or Rahm Emmanuel walks into Chicago and gets "elected". This ain't civil & it ain't liberty and the imposition is getting old. Real old.
ReplyDeleteSticking body parts where they do not belong and expecting the rest of us to pay for the diseases and injuries that naturally, yes I said naturally, result is just insane and unhealthy, there is nothing libertarian about it. So I think anonymous thinks everyone should have the right to put a bean or banana up his/her nose and expect the rest of us to give them the "thumbs up sign" and pay for the damages that result. Sorry but I don't agree to that. I have the right to protest and even end it.
ReplyDeleteSigh. It is the SSM advocates who are the bigots for denying equal opportunity to both sexes in marriage (one man/one woman is a lot more affirmative action compliant than 100 percent men or 100 percnt women).
ReplyDeleteAnonymous on July 2 at 7:59 P.M., I love your post. It is so true that there is nothing "equal" and "non-discrminatory" about marrying two men or two women. Let's hear it for the equality of one man and one woman marriages.
ReplyDelete