Six Conservative Guys

Six Conservative Guys - Proudly Serving the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Since 2003

We'll gladly reply to or publish your response. E-mail Six Conservative Guys

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?
Monday, August 11, 2003
Re: Gay Marriage

You guys discussed things while I was away? What's up with that? I actually tried to go back and look, but the archive wasn't there yesterday and I couldn't figure out how to search. Forgive the repetition.

I'll go back and read those posts. In the meantime let me tackle a couple of your points briefly and then more fully address these later.

1) Cultural Disaster

I'll address this in more depth later on, but briefly here are three of the reasons: a) kids -- Kids are better off in a family with one mom and one dad, I don't think anyone can argue that. Single moms/dads, gay dads/gay moms, Mom/dad and live-in boyfriend/girlfriend aren't the same. Are there individual examples where some of these are work? Yes. And do some of these groups do wonderful jobs with their individual kids? Again, yes. But on the whole, I think it's wrong to intentionally have a kid where there isn't a stable relationship between a mom and a dad. And what's going to happen when there are two moms and a dad, or two dads and a mom?; b) slippery slope -- How can you logically stop at gay marriage? What about adult sibblings who "just love each other," or three people (or more). Where does it end? The same arguments that are used to justify gay marriage will be used to justify these "marriages."; c) monogomy -- I think monogomy is a social virtue. (And it's the same for straight or gay people.) But if in fact it is true as some opponents of gay marriage write that gay men are likely to have open marriages, that will slowly creep into the culture as an accepted practice, just like drug use, abortion and recreational sex. And I think that a relaxation of the stigma (what's left of it anyway) on adultery will greatly wound if not destroy the institution of marriage as we have known it.

2) Why?

Because that's what I think. I didn't say the Catholic Church had to be the arbiter of this or that we had to amend the Constitution to establish a State Religion. And I certainly don't think that any non-Catholic has to think twice about Church teaching, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make.

I think the Church's position, as compared to the position of some Christian denominations that attack homosexuals because they are gay, is a good one.

3) Except you obviously do care...

No, I don't. If you were a single guy and you were gay that wouldn't have any bearing on me. I'd still debate politics with you, bash libs and drink some beers. I'd certainly still call you a friend. I might not like what you did in your bedroom, but whatever, that's your business. Just as I don't like what some of my single straight friends do in terms of sex outside of marriage, that's their business. (Although I don't let them -- including my divorced dad -- sleep in the same room as their girlfriends when they are staying at my house. Then it begins to effect my kids.) My position on homosexuality is probably a little bit sin and a little bit socially deviant. And I thought 'don't ask, don't tell' was an okay compromise.

4) Fortunately I am an adult...

I agree 100% with your analogy to the Miller Lite and Coors Lite commercials. But the problem is that I find it very difficult to even sit down and watch a football game with my kids on a Sunday afternoon. And even on "safe" channels -- like Nick during kids shows -- the commercials are often times lurid and despicable and stop just past soft-porn. So, my kids don 't watch those stations anymore, because I police what they watch. I assume you do too. But what about the kids whose parent's don't police what they watch because they assume things like Scooby Doo are safe.

5) Civil Union, etc.

The Texas prosecution was dumb.

And I said that I thought civil unions were an okay compromise, but it would be better to get to the heart of the matter and make it so that we don't need them for things like tax incentives, health insurance, medical decision, etc. But short of a conservative revolution to do all of those things, I would support the Federal Marriage Amendment which would define marriage as between one man and one woman and turn the issue over to state legislators to decide the merits or demerits of things like civil unions in their own states. (And I'm pretty consistent on turning lots of things over to the states for them to do whatever dumb or enlightened things that they want. At least then I can 'vote with my feet' if need be.)

Comments: Post a Comment