Skip to content

Same-Sex Marriage For And Against: Part III

Read Part II

Question 3

Allard

Truth is always worth fighting for.
Truth is always worth fighting for.
In question 3, the argument presented by Mr. Briggs is that marriage has very little to do with love.

It is true that a marriage has little to nothing to do with love. Marriage is mainly an economic contract. For a very long time, marriages were arranged for economic or political reason. Rarely in the past was marriage ever about love or even growing families.

Why shouldn’t gay be able to adopt? If heterosexual were so great at growing kids there would be no gays, since until recently parents were only heterosexual couples. It is not important to have a father and a mother, what is important is to have good parents that are able to educate their children, to love them and nurture them.

I really don’t understand your claim that the State will claim custody of children. There are enough orphans and abandoned children and not enough families are that are available to adopt them. Also, should we leave children in homes where they are abused, beaten, neglected or mistreated? I admit that social services might not be perfect, but they don’t go in houses where children are correctly treated or taken care of.

Freedom of speech is covered in Canada. What is criminalized is hate speech, or speech that would incite violence against a group of people. People are free to express their opinion, to say that they are oppose to gay marriage and many people do express themselves against gay marriage. Though, in Canada you have to be careful not to lie/defame about someone. For example, a guy like Rush Limbaugh who accused Sandra Fluke of being a slut, or prostitute, could have been sued for what he said, this is a lie and defamation.

Freedom and liberty have their limits, and those limits are at the level of the individual. It means what effect on your physical person. What I find interesting with people against SSM is that they always complain that others infringe on their rights, but they have no problem forcing their point of view onto others. The difference with SSM is that your point of view prevents them from doing something that you give yourself the right to do. You would have a point if the government was forcing you to get gay married, or again, was forcing the church to perform SSM. You have never provided a single example in what manner any of your individual right were violated by having the government recognizing it.

Briggs

I dispute that historically marriages were “economic contracts”, or that they were mainly used as bargaining chips. Of course, they sometimes were; but always? Nay. Yet even if they always were, this is not an argument for or against SSM. As we agreed in Part I, what people do or don’t does not make what is right.

Allard: “If heterosexuals were so great at growing kids there would be no gays, since until recently parents were only heterosexual couples.” If your assertion here is correct, it only means married people have to do a better job, a plea which I support. But when you say, “It is not important to have a father and a mother”, I disagree vehemently. Thousands of years of experience argues oppositely. “Why shouldn’t gay be able to adopt?” If we prove that homosexual behavior is immoral and that SSM is wrong then these just are reasons against adoption.

“Hate” speech in Canada, as we saw in Part I, is whatever a Human Rights Commission says it is. “Violence” is a relative term and appears to include hurt feelings. Canadian HRCs do not have a glittering record defending freedom. But I’m with you in not supporting Limbaugh calling Fluke the “s” word. Better is to call her a publicly promiscuous pampered spoiled brat.

Allard: “you would have a point if the government was forcing you to get gay married…” Whoever claimed this? What I say is that I don’t want the government forcing me to say what marriage isn’t. Thought on tolerance: my best guess is that to appear truly tolerant an individual will soon either have to admit having a homosexual “experience” or at least allow that he would if the opportunity presented itself. Give this ten years.

Question 4

Allard

In question 4, Mr. Briggs asked if we, those that support SSM, understand what marriage is.

What is interesting about same sex marriage is that those who are against it don’t have to bless it, don’t have to endorse it, they don’t even have to see it as marriage. I can’t imagine a situation in an everyday life where you would treat someone differently because they are married; maybe a nurse in a hospital who would have to grant access to the room of a life partner. But what does it change to a hospital employee who is by the bedside of a person as long as they are legally there.

No Church is being asked to perform SSM; this would be an infringement on religious belief. And nothing is asked of anyone except the government to recognize the same right to same sex couples than usual couples, i.e. to become an economic unit, mainly for tax purposes, or sometimes for adoption if they qualify. There are single parents that adopt children. We also have to consider the large amount of women, and sometimes males, who are stuck with kids that the father or sometimes mother didn’t want.

As I have demonstrated earlier, marriage is a creation of the state (societies in any form constitute a state). For a long time, the reason for marriage was to transmit the ownership right a father had of his daughter to another man. Back then, women were the property of male, and still are in many old countries. Why are there so many divorces? It is because women are becoming their own person, instead of a commodity for males.

Briggs

Allard: “those who are against [SSM] don’t have to bless it, don’t have to endorse it, they don’t even have to see it as marriage.” Rot. The opposite is true. You do have to bless it, you do have to endorse it, you do have to say it is marriage.

How many readers out there who understand the actual definition of marriage—be honest, now—defend it publicly? What happened to Chick-fil-A was no aberration and occurs on smaller scales increasingly. Yours truly has lost jobs after clients discovered his opinion on this subject which, I need hardly add, have nothing to do with his professional competence. If you find yourself thinking, “Good!” about this, then your thoughts are proof of everything I claimed.

And what is the result of any well-known person, even royalty (Spain), voicing opposition? You know the answer. Few want to be screamed at hysterically or risk losing their livelihoods. Better to keep your mouth shut (but don’t worry, everybody’s doing it).

What I and other freedom-loving people object to is the government and its lickspittle sycophants forcing us to go along with all things “pride.” Disagree with SSM and say so publicly? Then off to reeducation camp—i.e. sensitivity training—for you, you homophobe! After Anthony Kennedy’s illogical exercise the only freedom left is the freedom to agree, you bigot!

The so-called Department of Justice told its obedient employees in re homosexual pleasures “DON’T judge or remain silent. Silence will be interpreted as disapproval.” Silence is not allowed. Same kind of attitude—not uncoincidentally?—was found in the Soviet Union. Support or pay the price.

Allard is right to say that churches now are not “required” (who thinks before using this word?) to perform SSMs. But they will be. My prediction is that any place of worship that in addition to providing the sacrament or ceremony of marriage also takes care of the governmental paperwork will be required to perform SSMs. There is already a big push to remove tax-exempt status from places of worship, a strategy which will be successful here and there. All mainline protesting Christians (Methodists, Episcopalians, etc.) will acquiesce in time. Most Baptists will stay strong, as will evangelicals. Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and Catholics will hold fast.

Whoever does not act like a lady or gentleman in responding will be banned.

Read Part IV.


22 thoughts on “Same-Sex Marriage For And Against: Part III Leave a comment

  1. . If you find yourself thinking, “Good!” about this, then your thoughts are proof of everything I claimed.

    In a sense I think it was “good”, but only in the sense that you spared yourself from being in a terrible company. Ok nevermind, it’s terrible. No matter how I disagree with you here, the fact that you do should have no bearings on stuff like that. Many atheists are discriminated in the same fashion in the States like that and that’s troubling too.

  2. Briggs: Your term for Sandra Fluke is so much better than Limbaugh’s!

    Liberal are all saying churches won’t have to perform gay weddings. Then we look at Europe–Denmark does. Sure, we supposedly have separation of church and state, but look how well that worked with requiring birth control be provided. Hobby Lobby can attest to the absence of separation of church and state. It is happening now, so no way can one argue it’s not possible for the government to force businesses and churches to support gay marriage or else.

    It is also definitely true one cannot oppose gay marriage without vilification. This is not voluntary–it is mandatory. Again, because gays demand they be called “moral”. Not equal under the law, but “moral”. No dissent is allowed.

  3. One of the downsides of working for clients is that they do have opinions. If your potential clients do believe in the rights for gay people to marry, then it should not come as a surprise that they will not hire you. Some might, but that is rare.

    The majority, I suspect, will be the kind that don’t want any kind of trouble and just not hire anybody controversial. As has been the practice throughout the ages. It is shameful, but not surprising.

  4. @Sheri

    Don’t forget that the majority of people in Denmark (and Holland) believe that gays must be allowed to marry. It is not government policy being forced on the people, it is government policy expressing the will of the majority.

    Not sure about the situation in Denmark, but in Holland marriage is state marriage. It has been like than since Napoleon Bonaparte. You can marry for the church too, but that has no legal significance, at all.

  5. Sander: If one is to believe polls, the majority (by a very thin margin) in this country believe in gay marriage. Denmark does not seem to have the rule about separation of church and state, but how long can the US maintain this when the majority seem intent on allowing only religious freedoms that they agree with? We may become Denmark.

    Actually, church marriage has no standing in the US. That’s how polygamists exist–one “state” marriage and several “church” marriages. Then they are not breaking the law (and they qualify for government benefits for the “single” mothers to whom they are “married”. A win-win situation, it seems.)

  6. This statement has me perplexed, “Allard: ‘If heterosexuals were so great at growing kids there would be no gays, since until recently parents were only heterosexual couples.’”

    Briggs, You responded, but I am not certain you addressed the argument.

    What does “growing kids” mean? Raising? Birthing? Something else?

    If Allard means raising, he has indicted himself.

  7. Briggs,

    “The opposite is true. You do have to bless it, you do have to endorse it, you do have to say it is marriage.”

    Give me an example where/when/how in a day you have to bless someone else marriage even if not gay?

    The president of Chick-fil-A is free to express is opinion. People are free to disagree and to ask people who disagree with him to not support is business. Freedom of speech goes both way, you can say whatever you want or almost, but you might suffer consequences for your beliefs.

    The first amendment defend the Church right to not celebrate gay marriage. This doesn’t mean that a rev. of an autonomous protestant church could not celebrate it if the rev. agree with it. But I don’t see how the Catholic church could be force to perform gay marriage.

    On tolerance: Tolerance is letting people live their own lives has they intend.

    Religion becomes dangerous when they claim that the sin of others affect their own redemption.

  8. Sylvian,

    You lost me again. You state, “Religion becomes dangerous when they claim that the sin of others affect their own redemption.”

    A claim is an example of free speech. Are you for or against free speech?

  9. Jim,

    Where did I say that they could not make the claim.

    Pat Robertson claimed that Katrina was cause by the gays, and that the earth quake in Haiti was caused by a packed with the devil.

    A normal person knows that the guy he is missing some bolts and will mainly laugh at his ridiculous. Sadly there are some people out there who believe him and will lash out at gays for something they didn’t do. Just like in Europe, Christian lashed out Jews for many reason, saying that natural phenomenon were caused by them. The withes of Salem trials were also the result of such claim.

  10. Sylvian,

    “Religion becomes dangerous when they claim that the sin of others affect their own redemption.”

    Please tell me what entity is supposedly charged with preventing “dangerous” situations from occurring? Government, of course.

    So, if it is dangerous for religions to make certain claims, then government MUST intervene and stop the “dangerous” speech.

    “Just like in Europe, Christian lashed out Jews for many reason, saying that natural phenomenon were caused by them. The withes of Salem trials were also the result of such claim.”

    This comment, read in light of the one I noted above, bleeds intolerance on your part.

    The only conclusion I see following from your propositions is the state — the societal apparatus of coercion and compulsion — must circumscribe religious speech. We can’t afford free speech to the likes of Robertson, now can we?

    Note: Still trying to understand this statement of yours: If heterosexuals were so great at growing kids there would be no gays, since until recently parents were only heterosexual couples.” Please clarify.

  11. A great danger of SSM is its impact on freedom of religion. Those who say “churches won’t have to perform gay marriage” are missing the point. Religion does not take place only in church – a religious person leads a religious life.

    Catholic organizations highly beneficial to society (such as adoption organizations) have already been forced to choose between committing grave sin and shutting down. The result – they shut down, to the harm of many, and only so that those gay radicals can feel good about it. T

    his same sort of religious persecution will take place in many ways. Sure, we may have neutered Churches with government carved out exceptions, but religious people will be prosecuted and sued for adhering to their religious conference. A simple example: a photographer who refused to provide services to gay marriage was hammered legally as a result. This will be very common.

    It may be that reasonable gays have no interest in this sort of persecution, but that is irrelevant. Gay radicals like those who have been shutting down funding to the Boy Scouts, who in the ’80s threatened blood banks with intentional HIV donations if they refused donations from homosexual men… these people will stop at nothing to destroy any institution which does not go along with their desires.

    The actions of gay activists, not the arguments of gay SSM proponents, show this clear danger.

    Were it not for these issues attendant to legal recognition of SSM, I would not oppose it. The numbers of gays who will marry is very small, so the financial impact of organizations being *forced* to extend benefits to them is relatively trivial. It is the attacks on those who are disapprove that are the true face of SSM advocacy and the greatest danger to the social good.

  12. Now Sylvain, I have given you many such examples (“SILENCE means disapproval”) and many more are to be had for the small price of an internet search. I wonder that you keep forgetting them.

  13. Briggs,

    re. silence.

    Beyond the DOJ memo, in Salinas v. Texas, your silence can be used against you, with it being portrayed as an admission of guilt.

  14. Jim,

    You read way too much from a few words.

    Is the government in charge of preventing hurricane?

    In what matters to free speech the government role is to prevent hate speech.

    You can have a good idea of what constitute hate speech really is in reading the court decision here:

    http://scc.lexum.org/decisia-scc-csc/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/12876/1/document.do

    Saying you think that gay marriage is wrong does not constitute hate speech.

    Saying that calamities are caused by a group of person do constitute hate speech. Citing verses from the bible is one thing. Saying that the bible orders you to kill or discriminate has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with schizophrenia.

    Growing kids is a regular expression that I hear often, but I guess you could say raising.

    About the statement: Kids have been raised by parents male-female for centuries, yet gays have always been there.

  15. Sylvain–The American standard for hate speech appears to be very different from Canada’s. In America, you can wish conservatives dead, hope NRA members get shot, brag that you “killed all the white people” in a movie, etc. One can also say what Robertson did, or what the Rev. Fred Phelps does–which is that Americans die in war because of homosexuality being approved by America. You cannot openly state your disapproval for homosexuality while at work or you can be charged with creating a hostile workplace. Homosexuals can call people homophobic at will and harass those who disagree as they wish–homosexuals cannot actually be charged with hate speech while berating those who disapprove, so far as I know. Pretty much hate speech is standing up for anything that used to be considered moral and just.

  16. Sheri,

    I agree. Sylvian defines hate speech as speech he hates to hear.

    Sylvian,

    The question is, what does this mean: Kids have been raised by parents male-female for centuries, yet gays have always been there? Is it just a random statement of fact, or are you implying something by it. Please advise.

  17. Got to get my tags right. Once more:

    Sheri,

    I agree. Sylvian defines hate speech as speech he hates to hear.

    Sylvian,

    The question is, what does this mean: Kids have been raised by parents male-female for centuries, yet gays have always been there? Is it just a random statement of fact, or are you implying something by it. Please advise.

  18. Sylvain,

    I forgot to mention that this statement is a bald sophism: Is the government in charge of preventing hurricane?

  19. Jim,

    It is SylvAIn BTW.

    It implies that it is male/female couple that have raise people that turned out to be gay.

    The similarity between gay and handedness are very interesting and numerous.

    Speech that I hate is speech that can lead people to cause harm(psychological or physical), even if I don’t like the person.

    I’m not sure that Robertson would have gone free if he had been sued.

    The first speeches Hitler gave were not as hateful as others he has given later. But the more is follower got excited the more his speech were hateful and the more violence has risen to the point that it was okay to kill jew or that they should be killed.

  20. Sylvain,

    “It implies that it is male/female couple that have raise people that turned out to be gay.”

    You are reiterating the statement, which is fact, without detailing the implications you find in it. WHAT does it imply? What hidden argument are you making?

    “Speech that I hate is speech that can lead people to cause harm(psychological or physical), even if I don’t like the person.”

    You harmed my psyche when you loudly (and offensively) noted my misspelling of your name. Are you sorry?

    “The first speeches Hitler gave were not as hateful as others he has given later. But the more is follower got excited the more his speech were hateful … ”

    I don’t understand. Were his speeches hateful BECAUSE his followers got excited? Is that your point.

  21. Jim,

    There are no hidden argument in the sentence I made.

    I didn’t loudly (and offensively) noted the misspelling I have just put emphasis on the letter that where misspelled.

    In 1921, Hitler add no plan to kill million of Jews, gays, slave, etc. But what he said resounded with some people and the cycle of hatred went deeper and deeper, until it was considered a good idea to hurt these people. If Hitler’s speeches had been put in check and limited to personal conversation, in the first place. He would never have been in a position to gain power to begin with.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *