Liberal Fairness to Gays

Published on January 28, 2006 By stevendedalus In Politics

Since liberals try to resist to a degree the temptation to be judgmental concerning lifestyles that minimally affect the common good or the nation's well-being, they should be apolitical concerning gay marriage; but be no less political in the area of gay's civil and constitutional rights. However, gays are encouraged to be discreet and not look foolishly defiant publicly, inasmuch as it is --and there is no other way of putting it--an aberration that is potentially inflammatory. I say this because I do believe that were there a corrective procedure to be "normal," most gays would opt for it. Nevertheless, there is no reason to deny them the same equal rights all of us are privileged to have. There is also the nagging probability that at least some are gay owing to social and psychological events and experiences in which engaged, perhaps wilfully or unwittingly developed. Also troubling is that children or very young adults have convinced themselves of being gay before their formative years.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com

Comments (Page 2)

Dr Guy

on Jan 29, 2006

Satire? Now JU participants are to be encyclopedic.

No, just curious. I said his concepts, not some ultimate truth. I think he has scratched an interesting idea, and I would like to see if more fully explored. Wouldn't you?

stevendedalus

on Jan 29, 2006

It seems pretty clear to me. Diversity to be sure, but make damn sure you marry rich within the culture and continually enhance the dynasty.

Dr Guy

on Jan 29, 2006

Diversity to be sure, but make damn sure you marry rich within the culture and continually enhance the dynasty.

Is this John Kerry?

bakerstreet

on Jan 29, 2006

It's funny how people who are so concerned with governmental imposition and "big brother" don't see how through things like Roe v. Wade, and now the imposition of gay marriage, etc., that we are no longer allowed to decide things, and that it is less and less a Democracy. It really doesn't matter that the majority of Americans want to be able to define marriage, they aren't going to be allowed. Not going to be allowed to decide what is law... in a supposed Democracy.

In the end, we're a culture whose high preists are lawyers, and whose God Emporer is the Supreme Court.

Rightwinger

on Jan 29, 2006

marriage has always been about benefits and estates

+LOL+ Maybe for cold, shallow cynics like you, king. Not for all of us. I married my wife because I loved her, and she me. We hadn't much to offer each other, beyond that, and yet we've made a marriage. Amazing!

When fire was invented the ignoble savage needed a woman--or an effeminate male--to cook the prize of the hunt. Marriage at first was always a question of convenience. As possessions mounted the joining of loot became desirable.

--stevend

Notice how all of the cold, shallow cynicism seems to be coming from the left, here, children?

drmiler

on Jan 30, 2006

Never before have three little letters made such a reasonable, yet firm argument.
I wonder if drmiler unwittingly or deliberately included the second meaning.

Did you also bother to read the high-lighted portion of the 2nd definition?

stevendedalus

on Jan 30, 2006

Is this John Kerry?

Absolutely!

Only in America--and the Swiss Alps!

whose God Emporer is the Supreme Court.

That will reverse itself with Alito.

Did you also bother to read the high-lighted portion of the 2nd definition?

Of course, marriage predates homosexual partnership, which now has become like traditional marriage. That's how usage becomes acceptable--copy catting.

stevendedalus

on Jan 30, 2006

Notice how all of the cold, shallow cynicism seems to be coming from the left, here, children?

You take things too literally. Please allow for poetic license. I have some faith that even Kerry conceivably loves Theresa, regardless of her money.

kingbee

on Jan 30, 2006

But then there are those cultures that do not adhere to our western mentality. And yet they had marriage.

????

for the second time, that's exactly my point.

until very recently (like from the stone age until about the middle ages for us) and in most other cultures (other = not ours) marriage hasn't/isn't intentionally a matter of love or romance, but rather an stylized form of bartering, one primary object of which is mutual improvement of circumstances and chances of survival.

consequently, if anyone has recently redefined marriage, it would be us.

as far as customs of the plains' nations, lemme know which of them you're curious about and i'll be happy to provide the dubious benefit of whatever i've picked up along the way.

kingbee

on Jan 30, 2006

+LOL+ Maybe for cold, shallow cynics like you, king. Not for all of us.

not a bad attempt, but you're gonna have to be a bit more clueless if you wanna undercut drmiler.

I married my wife because I loved her, and she me. We hadn't much to offer each other, beyond that, and yet we've made a marriage.

how enlightened of you to have chosen to be born in a time and culture in which you didn't have to come up with cattle or sheep or somethin similar with which to pay for the bride your parents selected for you. you know...like all them people in the old testament as well as almost the entire populations of pre-20th century china, india, africa, etc.

ParaTed2k

on Jan 30, 2006

In western culture the word "marriage" has a meaning. While some of the details of that meaning has changed (such as, at what age, how many wives, who chooses the mates and how the marriage is solumnized) one thing has remained the same. Marriage is between man and a woman.

If the gay activists are calling for societal change, that is their right. However, it is on them to prove the change would be a good thing. Change for the sake of change or appeasement is rarely a good thing.

~~~~~~

Also, I'll believe that liberals "liberals try to resist to a degree the temptation to be judgmental concerning lifestyles that minimally affect the common good or the nation's well-being" when I finally see it in action. ;~D

stevendedalus

on Jan 30, 2006

Also, I'll believe

Liberals certainly don't get upset over the linguistics of "marriage." And they do not express cynicism or public distaste when two men in love are holding hands, nor even if in group prayer.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!