Every week on Monday morning , the Council and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher's Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week's question: Have Your Views On Same Sex Marriage Changed Recently?
The Independent Sentinel : No. Why should they? What's happened? Because Obama now thinks it's okay and the media thinks I'm a homophobe because I believe in traditional marriage?
Who cares? I believe marriage is between a man and a woman.
My views haven't changed except that I am resigned to having lost the battle.
I am not a bigot against gays but I believe that gay unions with equal rights would have been preferable to opening up the definition of marriage.
Now, let me state the obvious, if polygamists want to marry, I don't see how they can be stopped. Is that really okay with people? It's not with me.
Liberty's Spirit : No, my views on same sex marriage have not changed at all. I have always believed that gay couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples when it comes to marriage and all its benefits; whether it is taxation, rights of inheritance and family rights in a hospital. I do believe that it is despicable to deny people their human rights simply because of their sexual orientation. When the gay marriage controversy first started my sons actually were incredulous. "They're people," was their response, and then the boys added," Don't we have some real problems in this country to deal with?"
I am also not so sure that I disagree with the "gay mafia" in their attacks on opponents of gay marriage either. If someone was trying to deny me something I considered a human right I would push back as hard as I could. That Brendan Eich was pushed out from Mozilla/Firefox because of his anti-gay marriage stance well that is the cost of having free speech and doing business in the USA. (FYI he invented javascript I don't think he is gong to suffer any.) In truth if there was an antisemite running a high profile company, I would try to get them booted out if I could. Supporters of Israel have gotten Congress to pass laws against the economic boycott of Israel and there is a push to withhold tax funding to educational organizations that decide to boycott Israel as well. Just recently t-shirts that could be viewed as antisemitic were removed from H&M stores. Think someone got in trouble for that clothing debacle? Maybe lost their job? I personally would be offended if a corporation hired someone who sent money to terror supporting groups like CAIR. I would have every right to demand their ouster if that corporation wanted me to use their product. I would have every right to promote a boycott of that corporation. So the push by gay activists to boycott products of people that are against gay marriage is as much their right as is it for the pro-Israel community or the pro- anything community to demand satisfaction from a corporation.
Also when people lose their jobs over the issue, that is a corporate and financial decision. Believe the truth that if corporations didn't think they were going to take a financial hit about a political issue they would never fire anyone no matter what their political persuasion. A Board that fired someone due to a political issue that would end up costing the corporation money would be sued for breach of their fiduciary duty. The purpose of a corporation is to make money for their shareholders. That is where their duty alone lies. If there is something that comes to light that effects the bottom line, yes it is the boards duty to fire that person. In fact, this is no different than when the pro-gay marriage Romney foreign policy adviser, Richard Grenell, quit during the presidential campaign so he would not be a drain on Romney due to the hullabaloo over Grenell's non-conservative-politics. Where was his political right to his opinion and to keep his job?
Yes you have a right to your political speech in your private life. But if you are gong to work for certain corporations that right ends at the corporate door. Corporations have a right to take your politics into consideration of how it effects their bottom line. That is generally why when going to a job in any major corporate environment you are actually asked about affiliations, conflicts and even volunteer activities; including what your spouse may or may not be involved with. (Check out IPOs, they list all this about every officer of the corporation) Clients are especially leery of hiring people that they feel have objectionable political views. That too is their right. It is why I tell my sons to be careful the petitions you sign and the groups you affiliate with. Make sure that their ideals are something you are willing to stake your future on because you never know if that is exactly what will happen. You never know who or what you will want to become in the future. You do not want anything to come back to bite you on the tuchas and destroy your dreams. In truth no one guarantees you a living. Any corporation would be in their rights to decide if it made financial sense to fire any individual that threatens their bottom line for any reason; from political activities to lack of social appropriateness.
Personally I have had enough of all the hullabaloo over gay marriage. I also will eat at chick-fill-a if I am hungry and I will continue to use firefox because it is the browser I like best, as well. In fact I will continue to use Javascript since it is part and parcel of the internet, any and all computer environments and a requirement for most jobs in the computer science field, even if it was invented by Brendan Eich. As my sons continue to ask..don't we have some real problems in this country?
The Colossus of Rhodey: I don't think my views have changed much, if at all. I've always thought of this as an equal protection issue: as long as gay couples receive the same [governmental] benefits as anyone else, the whole "marriage" debate should be moot. However, the gay "marriage" lobby is unsatisfied with that. To them, applying the term "civil unions" is akin to "second class citizenship" and "separate but equal."
This is ludicrous, of course. Just as men and women are fundamentally different (no matter what radical sociologists may say), so too is a heterosexual union different from a homosexual one. Gays obsessing on the term "marriage" (despite their recent judicial successes) is, in my opinion, silly. Attempting to alter a fundamental millennia-old tradition in a matter of years, as well as turning people like Mozilla's Brendan Eich into monsters for supporting traditional marriage, is ultimately incredibly counter-productive. Just look at the backlash Mozilla is already dealing with after Mr. Eich resigned as CEO amid intense gay lobby (and mainstream media) pressure.
GrEaT sAtAn"S gIrLfRiEnD :Actually, had to keep my tho'ts about it under the radar for most of me life as the 'rents, preachers and teachers were always so traditional. So it was kinda cool to rebel and believe if two ppl were in love - why not?
Now, being alledgedly all grown up, the constant gay, gay, gay all the time chiz has like totally queered the mix for moi.
Since gay ppl can't reproduce - they recruit. Certainly explains why they have parades and wanna steal children's innocence by going into schools
Don't really care either way - just don't wanna subsidize it or get lectures and movies bout how intolerance ppl are that for whatever reasons that don't support it.
Ask Marion: Just as I was pondering this question, I came across the following article: HOMOSEXUALS FLINGING POO
It’s common knowledge that the best way to legitimize your cause is by throwing feces at people who disagree with you, right? WRONG! Helloooo… do they really think this is going to help their case?
As if throwing feces weren’t enough, they also ripped pages from Bibles, wiped their bums with the pages, and then threw the feces covered Bible pages at others.
So much for civil discourse. I’m sure this will make everyone want to support the homosexual agenda (yes, they were the ones throwing the poo).
And because of events like this and a seemingly growing belief by many in the LGBT community these days that my attitude has changed on same sex marriage and on gay rights overall.
I grew up in Southern California, the greater Hollywood area, and have had gay friends all my life, never really gave it any thought until the past several ‘in your face years’, as well as gay family members and co-workers. And although I am a Christian, I have always had a ‘live and let live’ attitude, regardless of my own personal beliefs and convictions, and looked at one’s sexuality as an issue between each of us, our conscience and God. My brother-in-law died of AIDS in our home, when most people had little understanding of that disease and he had nowhere else to go.
But like many other groups who fight for rights and equality, it seems that as the LGBT community has become more mainstream and accepted fighting for their own rights, they have forgotten the feelings, beliefs and rights of others.
Marriage, between a man and a woman is a sacrament in the Catholic religion, a pillar at the center of most religions, and the concept of traditional marriage to produce and nurture children and anchor societies is at the heart of most cultures. Yet most people have long accepted civil unions or civil partnerships and agree that gay couples deserve most, if not all, the rights of married couples. From my experience, most Americans have searched their souls for compromise and grappled to find balance as Adam T. Barr writes in Compassion Without Compromise: How the Gospel Frees Us to Love Our Gay Friends Without Losing the Truth. There are instances when different but essentially equal makes sense and just because something is different, doesn’t make it bad or a negative.
Gay marriage has recently been approved in Great Britain and Elton John and his husband, filmmaker David Furnish, who have a civil partnership and have adopted two sons, will now get married, even though Elton has always said that he understands the feelings of the religious community and is fine with a civil partnership. Sometimes just ‘time’ changes things and other times you realize you were fighting for the wrong or an unnecessary goal, but either way, if you taint the water supply every step of the way, everyone is affected by the poison in the end. Let us also remember that President Barack Obama supported traditional marriage in 2008 and has since changed his position.
My gay friends are split 50/50 on the necessity of gay marriage over civil partnerships, understanding the religious roots of the concept of marriage, but 90 percent of them believe that the over-bearing and completely self-focused path that the movement is presently on is counter-productive and wrong. Winning your own rights or freedom at the price of others’ is a very hollow victory. What has always made America great is that everyone had the right to their own opinions and were allowed to voice them because the Constitution guaranteed everyone’s freedom. It is easy to support freedom of speech, freedom of the press, or freedom of religion when you agree with what is being said, believed or done. The true test of freedom is supporting someone’s right when you completely disagree with them. One of the best examples of freedom in action is the Supreme Court’s support of pornographer Larry Flynt.
Larry Flynt, one of the world’s most well-known publishers of pornography, published an unflattering parody of Jerry Falwell in Hustler magazine, Falwell waged a suit that eventually went to the U.S. Supreme Court. The court ruled in Flynt’s favor, citing the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of speech, which was depicted in the film, The People vs. Larry Flynt [Blu-ray]. Funny how the left is happy when the law works for them and wants to ignore it when they disagree.
Just this week Mozilla CEO and Co-Founder Brendan Eich stepped down after pressure from the Gay Community because Mr. Eich made a $1,000 donation five years ago in support of California’s anti-gay marriage law, Proposition 8. which was widely known, but his promotion to CEO brought the issue to the forefront once again. The ensuing outcry from the gay rights coalition and certain Mozilla employees on social media ultimately pushed Eich to abandon his promotion and leadership post. But now conservatives are striking back with a boycott of Mozilla. Let us remember the recent conservative victories for Chick-fil-A and Duck Dynasty as Hobby Lobby is expecting a positive ruling at any time in their fight for religious freedom. Waking a sleeping giant is usually the wrong course!
In Islamic countries they still kill Gay people just for being Gay. In America Gays now attack Christians because of their Bible rooted religious beliefs and somehow feel they are entitled to trample everyone else's rights to promote their agenda. Perhaps something to think about.
Although the question here was about gay marriage, the underlying question is whether Free Speech (and Freedom in General) Is Only for Progressives These Days? So yes… my views on gay marriage have changed recently and sadly not in a good way! As my mother used to say; “It is often not what you say, but how you say it that makes all the difference.”
The Right Planet: No, my views on traditional marriage have not changed. But apparently Barack and Michelle Obama's views on gay marriage have changed. Although I realize Obama's minions consider this major change in position by the Obama's as "progressive"--a mere "evolution" in views; it simply appears to me as political expediency. But that's the beauty (cf. sarcasm) of progressive (a.k.a. socialist) ideology: everything is relative ... things must change in order to adapt to the times--meaning: it's okay to lie; it's for the "common greater good," don't ya know.
I realize that it is chic to support gay marriage. I also realize it is considered "hateful" and "homophobic," i.e. "anti-gay," to oppose "same-sex marriage." Well, I was never very fond of government being in our bedrooms in the first place. Besides, gays are free to do as they wish. It is a bit perplexing to me why homosexuality is even a political issue in the first place. But, then again, it's not ... since I have studied the philosophy and origins of Marxism and collectivist ideologies for several years now. But I digress.
Yes, I know, I'm considered "anti-gay" because I staunchly oppose redefining marriage. But it's just a lie. Not all gays agree on the same-sex marriage issue. Does that make them "anti-gay"? It just means they have a difference of opinion. The federal government involved in redefining marriage is about redefining words for the sake of political expediency--a very Orwellian concept--don't like the words, change their meanings. No, I'm sorry, I don't see all of this an "anti-gay" agenda, but rather an "anti-family" agenda, hence an "anti-individual" agenda. Best of luck to you, Brendan Eich.
Rhymes With Right: Yes, my view has changed.
But not as to whether or not gay marriage should be recognized by the state. I still believe it should not.
That said, what has changed is my view of what needs to be done in regards to it. Given that our nation's leaders abdicated their responsibility to preserve the natural definition of marriage a decade ago, we must now go a different route and preserve the liberties of those of us who refuse to cave in to the spirit of the modern age. To that end, laws must be passed that protect the right of individuals and businesses to refuse to participate in gay marriages as an officiant, host, or vendor. Failure to do so will gut religious liberty in this country.
The Glittering Eye: No, my views haven't changed. I think that the direction we're headed in is poor public policy.
I can understand deciding as a society that all human sexual relationships are equally socially valuable. I may or may not may not agree with that position but I can understand it. In that case we should stop subsidizing marriage--essentially civil marriage should be abolished. Subsidizing all relationships equally, regardless of value to the society, just doesn't make much sense to me.
Well, there you have it.
Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum. And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.
It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you won’t want to miss it.
And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that, y'know?
No comments:
Post a Comment