I entered the following comment into SE Cupps' Facebook. I am a big fan of Cupp, but disagree with her very narrow view on this matter, a view that ignores the larger and more pressing debate:
I am a Boomer and oppose same sex marriage as the new definition of "marriage" . . . . . . . . BUT that is not the critical issue here. I listened to your passionate/sincere statement on CNN. Not trying to change your mind, but please understand that "gay acceptance" is one thing; it is quite another to silence opposition speech, close or punish churches and otherwise, force the cultural aspect (something other than the legal opinion) of this decision on those who have equally sincere opinions to the contrary. You do understand that faith (being an atheist -- maybe you don't understand), for many, is not an existential choice. If this is the end of the GOP . . . . . . . because I allow for gayness but publicly disagree with it . . . . . . . . . . then so be it. My brother fought for this country, in WW II. No one gives a shit about that except me, and today, I could not be more discouraged. You want us to look at those to the right of your CNN screen. Those same people will, now, come after me and do all they can to force my opinions into silence. Your are fine with that?? BTW, I am a huge fan and miss seeing you on Fox. this does not change that, but to ignore the second agenda, here (to silence all opposition), is an unintended consequence on your part, and a cold, callous effort on the part of others.
John, I'm not going to belittle you, or call you names, or anything else. But no one is trying to "silence opposition" or close churches, or anything of the sort.
ReplyDeleteI am a Christian, and I am a Republican and I am Gay.
Just as S.E. Put it, I just want the same REASONABLE rights that you as a straight person take for granted.
I don't believe churches should be closed or pastors put behind bars because they refuse to marry gays, that would be WRONG.
But there are churches out there that believe that all people are equal in the eyes of the Lord. And they are more than willing to do the services without any fuss.
And we deserve at least the same basic human respect and rights that you enjoy and don't even think about. People get married everyday in Las Vegas and then a month later get divorced, and celebrities do it for hours at most and then file for divorce. But no one bats an eye at that because it's just normal behavior for straight people. And you all take it completely for granted.
Since you brought it up, straight atheist people get married all the time, why aren't they banned from getting married? If your only reason that gays shouldn't marry is because of a religious issue, then why has that never come up for discussion?
It's simple, marriage wasn't originally a religious institution, it was a business contract. People married for many reasons, back in the dark ages kings married off their daughters to solidify kingdoms, to create peace in a war torn area. Whatever the reason it wasn't about faith, or that it was one man and one woman. It was simply a business transaction.
Fast forward a whole bunch and the Catholic Church decided that they needed to make rules about who could and who couldn't marry, and even then they were still performing marriages between two men. It wasn't until modern times when people decided that they were better than others that this idea that one group of people should have more rights than another that we started having all the problems.
You're opposed to two men getting married and that's fine, I'm not trying to change your mind, but why does my life impact yours? I'm not trying to force my opinion down your throat. And I don't think that your opinion should have to impact how I live my life. You shouldn't have the right to decide what I can and can't do with my life.
I am guaranteed "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and so are you. So why can't you just live and let live?
Chris, you missed my point altogether. You want to sleep with your best friend? Fine with me, but don't boycott my business for disagreeing; do not come into my church and tell my pastor what to preach LIKE THEY ALREADY DO IN CANADA AND MOST OF EUROPE, and most importantly, do not decide that I am a hater like [many] Lefties [always] do. I absolutely oppose the harsh treatment of gays in this country; I hired ANYONE in my business, but to redefine marriage as a gay union is to destroy the institution of marriage. Look, you say you just want the same rights as others, correct? Well, we could have solved the problem by allowing gays all the civil rights of a married couple. I believe in that. You get what you want and deserve and we keep the historical definition. But to change the definition proves that all this is not about simple fairness. And the conclusion to all this is to eventually end the very concept of marriage. Why? because you no longer have an argument against polygamy, or man-child marriages or the tax write-offs for married couples. I mean, why not allow someone to marry herself, and claim the domestic benefits of "marriage" in that strategy? I would be interested in your answer because I do not think you have one.
DeleteWho is closing churches?? No one is coming after you. Get a grip.
DeleteOk, piece by piece here.
DeletePersonally I don't agree with polygamy. That's just one person being greedy.
Man-child relationship is also wrong, not just wrong but disgusting.
And marrying oneself? Really? Come on that's just ridiculous! (This isn't an episode of Glee)
Now as an American citizen if I disagree with a certain person's views, or a company's views I have the right to boycott their place of business. Let's take the recent unpleasant act in South Carolina. If a business owner was to come out and say that they would no longer be serving black people, I would have the right to strongly disagree and have every right to boycott them.
People boycott Walmart all the time, but no one is up in arms about it.
I have zero interest in telling ANY church what they can or can't say.
Take the Westboro asshats for example. I totally think they are nothing but hate mongers and disgusting people. And even though I vehemently oppose their points of view, this is America and they have the right to their opinion.
I'm not out to destroy marriage I think it's a beautiful thing, I just want to be able to get married myself. I actually live in a state that had already decided that gays should be allowed to get married.
And when that decision was handed down nothing bad happened no pastors were jailed no churches were closed life went on as usual. I do believe in states rights, but not everyone can live in my state, and there are states where not everyone is equal, and as Americans we should think that's wrong. That's why the Supreme Court had to get involved. Because until everyone is equal, no one is. I respect your opinion, I don't have to agree with you but you're still a human and a citizen and I would defend your opinions with my life if necessary, but I love this country and I'm not out to destroy it. I just want everyone to have the same rights and freedoms.
I don't have to have the last word, here, so I will limit my response to this post. You did not give a reason against any of the three illustrations I gave you. Only personally preference. Secondly, you ignore Canada's speech restrictions as well as most of Europe, pretend that the militant heterophobic community has no such intentions, here, in the U.S. By the time I get to say "I told you so," it won't make any difference and my complain, probably will be illegal. I get that you are not "militant" in your views, but too many in the gay community are, and they have the political power to effect the very restrictions I know are coming. Finally, you (as a representative of the larger gay movement) do not simply want the same rights as others. You could have had that with a full-throated civil union clause, proving, again, that this is about taking down "marriage" as an institution. Heck, I found a headline, yesterday afternoon, five hours after the announced decision, talking about moving on to approving polygamy and their arguments are precisely the same as those used to justify marriage as a "one on one union to anyone," precisely the same.
Deletenote to readership - I convert all comments to "anonymous" to keep the folks from getting nasty replies from my side of the aisle. The two commenters above actually Identified themselves. They deserve reasonable replies, not the type of One Tooth responses they might get on Weazel Zippers, for example.
ReplyDelete