With the recent Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage across the country last week, we are told by its supporters that "love wins". But it seems to me that we are simply putting our own desires of whom we choose to sexually love over the loving needs of our children. Gay marriage doesn't hurt anybody we are told by its proponents.
Try telling that to Heather Barwick and the thousands of other children of gay parents.
18 comments:
Jerry, what I am saying is that the ideal situation is for a child to be raised with a married mother and father. Typically this provides that most stable and loving environment in which to raise a child. As some others have foolishly implied, I am not for removing children from single parents or from gay parents. That would be horribly traumatic for a child too. I simply think that we should always strive for the ideal, even if we fall short of it. Children that do grow up in a home with gay parents are presumably loved just as much as if they were raised by straight parents; however, many children still feel a profound longing for either their missing mother or father, depending upon the scenario. That is not fair for the child to be raised in such a way, in my opinion.
First of all, no one is arguing that a child being raised by its biological mother and father in a loving and committed relationship is not the best situation for the child. Secondly, children adopted by gay couples, or anyone else, is not already in an "ideal' family situation prior to adoption. In fact, i suspect that the majority of children are not raised in this "ideal" family situation. And thirdly, it has nothing to do with the legality of gay marriage.
How is this girl's letter "squelched"? It's all over the internet.
I get what she's saying. She feels deprived, and she wanted a daddy.
Well, fine, but...
She HAS a father. He's a jerk and he left.
Why not blame him instead of her mother's new relationship and spouse?
Is it possible her father would have been worse for her than Mom's new spouse? More than likely, I'd say. Perhaps if he stayed, she'd be whining about the emotional damage of not having a good father.
Children of single parents could call her a needy crybaby, too. After all, two Moms are twice as much as one.
It's the luck of the draw, kids. Sorry, it's always been that way.
The great threat to marriage is divorce and the factors leading to it, not gay marriage.
Oh, I see. "Tough luck Heather. No daddy for you because of the luck of the draw."
Yes, children are raised in situations that are not ideal everyday, but does that mean we should stop striving for the best likely environment in which to raise a child? Should we say, "Stop being a crybaby because you don't have a wedded and loving mother and father"?
I don't want to live in your world, Dave.
Didn't you see she HAS a father? He's a jerk, so that is tough luck for the child. Simple and sad reality.
Do you link her father's behavior to gay marriage?
I think you missed my point.
In my world, and yours, children do not choose their parents. It's always been that way, correct? That is the luck of the draw.
I hope you agree that divorce and the factors leading to it, not gay marriage, are the greater threat to marriage.
Dave, divorce is indeed a HUGE negative factor affecting marriage and children. SCOTUS un-constitutionally redefining marriage to include gay "marriage" only serves to further erode the institution. By the very reasoning offered by the majority opinion, there is nothing to stop polygamous, incestuous, or other iterations of people from getting "married" anymore -- provided they consent. And those cases will indeed soon follow. I wonder what effect that will have on our children.
If we had ALL followed God's law and intention with marriage in the first place, society, families, couples, and their children would be so much better off. God's rules are there for us not as punishments but rather as guidelines for us to live far happier and fulfilled lives. We are reaping the consequences of having ignored Him.
So we can agree at this point divorce and the factors leading to it represent the greater threat to marriage.
Your slippery slope theory may prove to be correct, but as of now it is opinion and hypothetical.
I totally understand religious beliefs are the basis of objections to gay marriage. Fortunately nobody is forcing it upon anyone.
I agree churches should not be forced to perform gay weddings. I also agree a business has a right to not participate in anything they are opposed to, whether for political, religious or social reasons.
My personal religion still says "Thou shalt not kill" but our government has overruled it by executing the guilty along with the innocent and starting wars.
Yet I am forced to pay for these.
Apparently gay marriage is much worse to some folks, even at no personal cost.
I agree if this single law were followed, the world would be a better place.
“You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
Many who claim to love God have a tough time with this one. I don't think they understand their sin in ignoring it. The hate in their hearts clouds their thinking and it is contagious. Hate is often the fruit of ignorance and fear, and the hatemongers always have the loudest voices to disseminate ignorance and fear.
Jerks like Limbaugh and Trump may demonize gays while extolling the "sanctity of marriage", but they are total hypocrites. They are haters and dividers, and it is obvious, as they hand over our government, laws, and public interests to the highest bidders, aka the servants of mammon.
An economy that serves only the rich is a threat to the general welfare and by extension, marriages. I think the Pope even made such a remark.
Let me leave it with this fact. Gay marriage does no harm to my marriage, nor does it harm any healthy loving marriage.
“I agree churches should not be forced to perform gay weddings. I also agree a business has a right to not participate in anything they are opposed to, whether for political, religious or social reasons.”
Dave, having said that, you are far more reasonable than most of your progressive peers. Perhaps it is because you do understand the ramifications of ignoring our Constitution better than they.
As for most traditional Judeo-Christian faiths, the ten commandments do indeed tell us that “Thou shalt not kill”; however, the proper translation from Hebrew is “Thou shalt not murder”. There is indeed a huge difference between the two. Killing, sadly, is sometimes necessary in the defense of the innocent or in just war. Murder, which is the intentional taking of an innocent life, is never justified.
Our government has long ago moved away from declaring war before sending troops into the fray, as our Constitution demands. The fact that they execute criminals and possibly the wrongly convicted is something with which I absolutely share your concerns.
“I agree if this single law were followed, the world would be a better place. ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ “
I agree with my whole heart, mind, and soul Dave!
As for Trump and Limbaugh, I have not paid attention to what either has said in recent times. I know Limbaugh would excoriate those pushing the militant gay agenda, but I never did hear him denigrate them as people. Perhaps he did, and I missed it. Regardless, I think the level of civil discourse has indeed become hate-filled on all sides of the debate.
I also agree that we need to take care of “the least of our brothers and sisters”, but that does not mean that we should rob them of their dignity. Giving them “entitlements” without helping them to improve to eventually be able to provide and care for themselves is not kindness.
As for gay “marriage”, I acknowledge that it does not affect the way I love my wife nor how she loves me in our marriage. The effects of it are far more subtle and insidious. It tears down the foundation of families and eventually will reflect in an even more dysfunctional society as a result, my friend.
War is killing of innocents on an industrialized scale. Those who start wars of aggression are more guilty than the killers following orders. How can that behavior NOT be equal to murder in the eyes of men and God?
Are war criminals exempt? Did Hitler not break that commandment?
I also don't think for one second "Thou shalt not kill" was not violated if one is charged with manslaughter instead of murder.
Just my opinion. Obviously institutionalized murder is acceptable for the winners.
I guess this is what makes me a bleeding heart liberal.
"As for gay “marriage”, I acknowledge that it does not affect the way I love my wife nor how she loves me in our marriage. The effects of it are far more subtle and insidious. It tears down the foundation of families and eventually will reflect in an even more dysfunctional society as a result, my friend."
So, it doesn't " affect the way I love my wife nor how she loves me in our marriage", yet it "tears down the foundation of families....". Just how is it tearing down the foundation of YOUR family? Or are you somehow exempt, but it is all the other poor people who are being affected?
JUST war is one in which innocents are never targeted and must be protected and defended by the military. Unjust wars of aggression are indeed pernicious. It thus changes from "killing" to "murder" if that cause is not just. Hitler and others such as he are not exempt. They will be called to answer for this gravest of sins.
"I also don't think for one second "Thou shalt not kill" was not violated if one is charged with manslaughter instead of murder."
You are talking about civil legalistic law. I am speaking of moral law. If one was recklessly negligent and thus caused the death of another, I don't know if that constitutes murder since the death of the other was not their intention, despite the fact that they should have known that their reckless actions could reasonably be expected to cause serious harm or death to another. I am uncertain. I would say it definitely is a grave sin, but whether it is morally or canonically considered murder, I honestly do not know.
Institutionalized murder may be acceptable in this temporal world, but that does not make it right or moral. Those supporting or engaging in it will eventually be held to account for it, I so believe.
"Just how is it tearing down the foundation of YOUR family? Or are you somehow exempt, but it is all the other poor people who are being affected?"
Yes, even my family is subject to it. My children see that the secular culture has become so permissive so that there are no guidelines or moral rules.
I, my wife, and our church may tell our family the moral truth, but that is not always enough to counter the immoral messages from school, work, movies,
radio, friends, SCOTUS, politicians, and our corrupt society in general. My voice is only one shouting into the storm.
It is just like gratuitous sex or violence depicted on TV or movies. I remember as a child of 12 seeing a video of a violent R-rated movie. It shocked me.
Now I see far worse things on TV today on CSI or NCIS and hardly take notice. We have become desensitized to violence. The same is true of our
sense of morality, including with marriage.
When we don't take marriage seriously as the sacrament it was intended... when society says, oh your husband or wife is a jerk -- just get a divorce.
When society and friends and family have become cynical and desensitized, it is far easier in the short run to just give up. That is why our divorce
rates now hover around 50%. Now that we have further cynically redefined what constitutes a marriage, those numbers will only increase for divorces.
Do you think that is better for society and our children, or worse? Yes it affects my family. It affects all of us, my friend.
I should have written "convicted" rather than charged, because manslaughter is often plea bargained when murder is difficult to prove.
I'm glad you have the insight that there are gray areas in both our world and justice system.
Semantics aside, war is always murder; Humans killing humans out of hate and fear, led by politicians stoking that hate and fear while seeking to benefit from it.
Speaking of manipulating hate and fear, Right Wing radio star Michael Savage is spewing this lately:
Obama is a “drunk psychopathic liberal from Hell” who is “driving the plane down into a mountain as fast as you can,” before lamenting that “a man who hates the police and hates the military is commander-in-chief.”
“This man is out to destroy us. ..It will take an act of God to stop this man from destroying us entirely…. Only an act of God can stop Obama.”
People believe this guy, he's rewarded by wealth and air time.
And hear I though Obama was just another corporatist politician serving global corporate masters with more corporate written trade agreements to become law of the land.
And Savage listeners would call ME a fringe case.
As with sex and violence on TV this demonization of fellow Americans has gotten way out of hand.
But they are rewarded for the violent images and their hate, aren't they.
I really do despise plea bargaining, even though I understand why it is used. It just doesn't strike me as right though.
"Semantics aside, war is always murder; Humans killing humans out of hate and fear, led by politicians stoking that hate and fear while seeking to benefit from it."
I respectfully disagree, Dave. War is not always murder. We were right to go to war against the Japanese empire and Nazi Germany in WWII. Japan was raping and killing throughout China and elsewhere. The Nazi's were attempting genocide of the Jews. We were justified in trying to protect the innocent as well as our own nation. That doesn't mean that we were morally correct to firebomb civilians in Dresden or drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki though. Sometimes JUST WAR is required. It is not murder. Targeting civilians is murder. Standing by and letting evil flourish in its designs is evil in itself though. War should definitely be a last resort, but I do not equate it with murder. I am not a pacifist.
As for Michael Savage, I listened to him occasionally years ago. I did not like him at all. His principles were often correct on the issues, but his hate and venom were counter-productive and certainly not what I would deem Christian. I agree that we don't need more hate spewed from any corner, especially those like Michael Savage. There are plenty of folks on both sides of the political spectrum that are guilty of this though.
That said, he and others have a right to their free speech. I have a right to change the dial and not patronize him or the businesses that support him. If enough people did so, then hatefulness would not be profitable.
"Again, my point was those who start wars of aggression are guilty of murder. Legalese and semantics aside."
Okay, I am in agreement with you on this point, Dave.
"If hate and demonizing reflect their 'principles', the Right is a force of a deep darkness indeed. If the Right cannot present their views without hate and demonizing others, their cause is infected with evil."
I admit there are those on the Right that are absolutely guilty as you have charged. Surely you aren't blinded and so partisan as to see that this is also an issue with some on the Left too, right? To my mind, the ends do not justify the means. You can never justify good by doing evil.
"If conservatism is virtue, why aren't the hate mongers called out? As I've noted, conservatives ask where is the outrage from moderate Muslims, yet almost never condemn the hate from their fringe."
Again, I admit that this is indeed sadly an issue. I do hear some conservative speak out, but not nearly enough. Further, this is something that is absolutely true of the Leftist fringe too. We all need to call out the hate regardless if we agree with the hater's underlying political philosophy or not. BOTH SIDES need to do this. We don't find solutions and areas where we can compromise in agreement and work together if we have so demonized and dehumanized the other side.
"It is also false equivalence to say liberals have anything resembling the 24/7 industry of hate and fear mongering we have from the Right."
Really? I am sorry but I absolutely disagree with you here, Dave. Sometimes union members are indeed thugs and incite or enact violence against people that disagree with them. Instead of being called "thugs", they are called "scabs". I have seen this first hand. Some liberals do indeed hate America. They decry our racist, sexist, homophobic nation without realizing that we as a nation have done far more to correct and combat those evils than any other nation. They don't realize that their venom they spew about how evil America is a protected right of theirs to speak such nonsense. The left constantly tells us how conservatives hate the poor, only love the rich, want to pillage and rape the environment, hate gays and anybody that isn't like them. I personally have been branded as a bigot and a hater because I believe in traditional marriage. MSNBC (D) is every much as a mouth piece of hate and division for progressive causes and politicians as you seem to believe Fox News is for the right. This is also seen on all three network news casts and most all of the print media too.
"Why isn't that hate as offensive as sex and violence on TV?"
It is. Regardless of who spews it.
"I'll tell you why. The Right not only condones it, it propagates it. These demonizers were welcome guests in the Bush White House. That is simply a fact."
Indeed. And not that two wrongs make a right, but don't you see the left's demonizers being allies, friends, and guests of the Obama White House? Surely you aren't that blind to not also see that, Dave.
I think you and I basically agree on this, my friend. We simply need to be more diligent at calling it out on our own side of the debate when we see it, and not just on our opponents side. I have tried to do so in the past, but admittedly I can do better. I will try to be more consistent in calling out such dehumanization and hate when I see it, regardless of what/whom the source is. I hope you will join me in this effort Dave, as you tend to be more rational then many of your other fellow political travelers.
"It is also false equivalence to say liberals have anything resembling the 24/7 industry of hate and fear mongering we have from the Right."
Let me elaborate.
Some liberals do indeed hate America. Sometimes union members are indeed thugs
This is the koolade I’m talking about. And these negative characteristics have been cast as universal to all liberals and union workers. Note the scorn in the voices of FOX and Limbaugh/hate talkers whenever the word “union” or “liberal” is used.
Some bankers and CEOs are crooks, but do we see them treated the same as unions or liberals? No. They are special. Wealth is virtue in their sick world. The servants of mammon have a home in the GOP. Only a willful blindness can’t see that. The TPP issue shows us they also have a large portion of the Democratic Party in their grip. Corporatocracy in all its splendor.
Liberals and unions are nothing less than the “red menace” to the far Right. And they are targets. Anti-union laws and corporate written trade agreements have almost crushed unions out of existence in the private sector. Look at the stagnation of the middle class and see the correlation. The radical Right will blame liberals, of course.
Rabid Right wingers are shooting people in churches. Yet we can’t agree to call those “good Americans” for the terrorists they are. Double standards abound.
Why doesn’t it occur to anyone that liberals are anti-racist, anti-sexist, and anti-homophibic, rather than anti-America? Since when is criticizing Republicans and government actions anti-American? Only when Republicans are in power. I was called anti-American for calling out the lies and war mongering from Bush and Cheney. Yeah. Now Obama the corporatist is called a foreign born Marxist. Sheesh.
It is called propaganda. If you think America, or specifically it’s government or military, has never committed evil, then I’d like to offer you Wounded Knee, and the photos of My Lai, and a million dead Vietnamese to count with the half million dead Iraqis. This is not hate for America. It is hate of the evil done. But that is never considered by the far Right.
The left constantly tells us how conservatives hate the poor, only love the rich, want to pillage and rape the environment, hate gays and anybody that isn't like them.
Actually the policies of the far Right tell us this. They literally take from the poor and give to the rich. “So a trade agreement sent your job to Asia and you want unemployment? “Piss in the jar, and pay my drug testing lab owner, you lazy taker bum”.
There goes the Fourth and Fifth amendment again.
“You think your pension is safe? Let’s tax it so we can give our rich buddies more tax cuts”. “Let’s gut education so we can transfer tax dollars into private school owners pockets”.”Let’s cut prison costs by paying our wealthy friends to incarcerate people. What could go wrong?”
This goes on and on and on. Look at the numbers and see the real re-distribution of wealth. It ain’t trickle down. The FOX/MSNBC false equivalence is there too. MSNBC isn’t dictating who can and can’t participate in a GOP debate. MSNBC has never thrown the equivalent of the “FOX Tea Party” rallies. MSNBC never propagated lies about “death panels” and a “government takeover of health care”. In fact, while FOX is forced into every cable and satellite TV set, MSNBC must be bought as an extra channel. MSNBC even has a Republican with his own show. No equivalence at all.
And then there’s talk radio… What can I add that’s not glaringly obvious?
Liberals call it “corporate media” for a reason. It’s owned by corporations that depend on corporate advertising. Right wingers call it “liberal media” to deceive. Theirs is the dominant voice in corporate media. No comparison.
The GOP always represents the interests of the rich over the majority. Corpo-Dems join them. Note the TPP trade agreement and fast track the GOP wants to give Obama.
Both liberal and conservative Americans will be hurt by this. The sooner we all see this the better.
“This is the koolade I’m talking about. And these negative characteristics have been cast as universal to all liberals and union workers.”
Dave, I have seen videos of SEIU union members spitting on and assaulting Scott Walker’s supporters in Wisconsin. I have seen them personally break car windows and beat “scabs” that tried to cross picket lines to go to work. THAT is a THUG in my book. It isn’t political koolade. Are all union members like that? No, certainly not. But there are too many that are militant in their beliefs and actions towards all that oppose them. That isn’t political hyperbole. That is a statement of fact.
Some bankers, CEO’s, and others are indeed crooks too. I don’t support them. I want them removed and prosecuted as much as you do. I wish you would feel the same way towards those several union members that are similarly guilty of crimes.
Unions at one time in our nation’s history were vital to counter the abuses of large corporations and to achieve decent pay and safety standards for their workers. Today, most unions have become nothing more than political action committees. The UAW and their ridiculous entitlement demands were accepted by foolish managers at GM and Chrysler to the point of bankruptcy which required the U.S. taxpayers to bail out those once proud corporations. The teachers unions today are often more concerned with protecting even poor or dangerous teachers than they are with educating children. Unions today in America really are an anachronism. They are largely no longer needed and serve little useful purpose.
“Rabid Right wingers are shooting people in churches.”
Really? I doubt that this punk Dylan Roof understood anything about politics – left or right. He was simply a druggie racist, and I hope he is punished accordingly to his evil crime.
“Why doesn’t it occur to anyone that liberals are anti-racist, anti-sexist, and anti-homophibic, rather than anti-America?”
Racism is an epithet used as a final resort in a debate by liberals often times these days, and usually when they are losing the argument. I no more harbor any ill-will or animosity towards my brothers and sisters of color then I do my own family. But if I refuse to agree with certain entitlement programs, or I denounce Al Sharpton, or take issue with a black kid that gets shot because he attacked a police officer and tried to take his gun, --- all of a sudden I am branded a racist. That is bull crap and simply not true. Fortunately, that whole race card thing has lost much of its usefulness for the left these days. People see it for the nonsense it really is.
Next, I fully acknowledge the evils committed by our nation in the past. From the unlawful killing of Indians, to slavery, to the slaughter of 50 million babies in the name of “choice”, I am painfully aware. I have also seen that on balance, America has been a far greater force for good and liberty in the world than the evil it has perpetrated. It is too bad that many on the left don’t recognize the same.
The Left and its policies are far more harmful than the Right’s though. The left looks at the poor, which often times their policies have created, just like what has been done under this asinine administration, and says “we’ll help you if you vote for us.” Decades and untold billions of dollars after the beginning of LBJ’s war on poverty, we have failed to make any significant difference. We have simply consigned another several generations to dependency and poverty. Liberals claim success by showing how many people are on their entitlement programs. Conservatives show success by showing how many people no longer need those same programs. Therein lies the difference, my friend.
You decrying the fact that some people on entitlements have to take drug tests to receive public money is a farce. I had to take a drug test for my job to provide them that money. It seems only equitable that they prove they aren’t using it for illegal drugs. If I don’t want my job, I don’t have to take the drug test. If they don’t want taxpayer assistance, they don’t have to take the drug test. No one’s rights are violated. It is a choice.
“MSNBC has never thrown the equivalent of the ‘FOX Tea Party’ rallies. MSNBC never propagated lies about “death panels” and a ‘government takeover of health care’. “
Really? Every day they throw equivalent rallies. Did you WATCH PMSNBC when Obama won the first time? Talk about a party! Chris Matthews gets “thrills running up his leg” just thinking about Obama. Maddow propagates lies about climate change and denounces those that scientifically disagree as “flat earthers”. Yeah, they are the equivalent… and worse.
Fox has various pundits and correspondents whom are liberals and always pose that side of the debate. Christen Powers is one of the better ones, as is Mara Liason and Juan Williams. Both of the latter were working for NPR also, but Williams was fired for having the temerity to disagree with some liberal talking point. So much for his free speech at National Politburo Radio.
Dave, I am afraid the real difference comes down to this: I am aware of and acknowledge the wrong doing and evil that sometimes occurs on the Right. You seem to dismiss or justify the same when the Left does it. It’s hard to find common ground if you insist that your guys never do anything wrong.
Post a Comment