You always hear people (like Senator Rob Portman) saying they used to be opposed to it, but have seen the light through experience and introspection, and now realize it's the right thing to do. You never hear anyone say they used to support it, but have seen the light, and now realize it's the wrong thing to do.
Friday, March 15, 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Although there are some proponents that are so off-putting in their zealotry as to make some people waver.
I think it's wrong for the gays to support same sex marriage. They already have civil union to claim insurance, inheritance, but not marry-penalty tax. Now Obama is going to take away the option of civil union. They have no choice but to get married to enjoy the benefits and share the punishments.
I've never heard anyone explain why particularly Gay Homosexual males, who as a group have next to zero interest in child rearing, ought to be given the benefits the government provides for raising the next generation.
Women tend to have lower salaries than men, particularly those women who took the time to raise their own kids. Married heterosexual couples have to pay significant costs to raise their children.
So why should government benefits be extended to homosexual males? Lesbian females with children, the jury is out, since the children produced are significantly different from the norm.
I haven't seen good answers to these questions. The only argument I've heard is "Some heterosexuals don't have kids (rare), or they are infertile."
Hardly in the state interest. So, I'll wait to hear good answers to these questions, and "Fairness" isn't one of them.
I support gay marriage now, but slightly less than I used to. Does that count?
But seriously, it's nice "as applied," but is that form of argument reliable? Have you tried applying it to other issues, past and present?
I personally haven't, but I can imagine scenarios that go both ways.
Seeing as how the militant gays and assorted special interests/government, attack/threaten those that do not agree with them on the subject, why would anyone do so?
I posted this in Ann Althouse's blog:
Count me as someone who has switched from being on the fence about gay marriage to being opposed.
The sheer nastiness, closed-mindedness and dishonesty of gay marriage advocates, exemplified by our own Andy R., has put me right off the project.
Instead of debate, gay marriage advocates simply short-circuit all discussion by saying that it is a human right and anyone who disagrees is a bigot.
Or they take the tack Althouse's son offers, which also short-circuits discussion, by saying gay marriage is inevitable, so give up now.
Not so, I have often heard of people who used to be supporters of SSM or were neutral who are now opposed. Like me for instance.
Yesterday was my partner's and mine 20th anniversary. I can't imagine my life without him.
We are not interested in marriage, but if civil unions come to this state- might do that.
Jaltcoh again does not make any reasoned argument- just implies its gonna happen and you better get on the winning team.
Portmanm too- WHY is he changing his position? Cause now there is a benefit to him personally? Selfish.
I used to support gay marriage but after liberal zealots spent months bullying me on the subject I voted against our state's referendum, which lost 2 to 1.
Those vocal assholes made me realize that not only should gays not be allowed to get married but that the government needs to get out of personal relationships of every kind.
The fact that your brother is gay and you are a limp wristed metrosexual are just blessings bestowed upon you by your mother's poisoned womb.
Cheers!
There is a certain pessimism that all great civilizations wither and die, so I suppose this sentiment is timely. However, I think that the "death wish" of destroying marriage and family is not inevitable, just a sign of the culture of death that is so embraced by those in power who profit from it.
How about speaking out against gays trying to force their way in the St. Patrick's Day parade in Cincinnati? Or, do you not believe in freedom of religion or freedom of association? Both constitutional rights.
I just declared my self to be a person who "used to support it, but have seen the light, and now realize it's the wrong thing to do" over at your mother's blog. I have a gay sister and a late brother who died of AIDS. Don't put me in the category of those who need a close relative that is gay to "see the light." I refuse to support those who want to take away our freedoms.
When Georgia put forward a referendum on defining marriage as being between one man and one woman, I voted against the referendum on principle. Oddly, though, I was happy to see the referendum pass, because the common argument for gay marriage was so awful to me that I was glad it was not more persuasive. I don't see any reason for society to offer legal recognition to romantic unions. The institution exists for the sake of children, even if there are many childless marriages. (Here's an analogy: colleges exist to educate people, even if there are plenty of people who go to college for reasons other than education.) I believe that same-sex marriage should be defended on the basis that gay men and women have the same rights to be involved in the child-rearing process, and therefore deserve the same possibility for recognition. For whatever reason, that isn't how the argument has been made.
I'll say it. I used to be for gay marriage, and I am now against it.
I am for marriage being what marriage has been forever--the union of a man and a woman.
I am all for every legal advantage granted to marriage beign granted to civil unions, but I am not for marriage between same sex individuals.
SSM is probably inevetable, but I don't see how that is any prescription for or against action.
Death is inevetable too and a great deal of effort is expended to delay this outcome.
If you think SSM is wrong or at least a bad idea then it should be opposed, even (or perhaps especially) if the outcome is pre-ordained.
I used to support it. But now it is such a pointless debate. From a legal standpoint the concept for marriage is a joke. The only thing the state should care about, maybe, is whether people have children. The state should grant a status change upon having a dependent child, and perhaps even encourage a couple maintaining that status for as long as they have that dependent. Beyond that, get out of the marriage business please. As is often the case, state involvement creates perversity.
Post a Comment