Don’t let the Left frame the debate on same sex marriage

Kudos to Newt Gingrich for helping reframe the debate on same sex marriage in last night’s Republican debate. The question is the definition of marriage, not one of civil rights.

It was a question from a Yahoo News reader: “Given that you oppose gay marriage, what do you want gay people to do who want to form loving, committed, long-term relationships? What is your solution?”

After explaining his views on rights that same-sex couples should have, he then expounded on the question. He said the biased establishment media loves to ask questions about tolerance for homosexuals, but doesn’t ever ask about tolerance for religion. He then gave several examples of homosexual bigotry, starting with, “You don’t hear the opposite question asked. Should the Catholic church be forced to close its adoption services in Massachusetts because it won’t accept gay couples? Which is exactly what the state has done.” He then concluded by saying, “There is a lot more anti-Christian bigotry today than there is concern on the other side.” Amen.

The bigotry of some in the gay community against religion is deep, bitter, and very serious. When I looked up reporting of Gingrich’s answer, I found a website for On Top Magazine, where a commenter basically distilled the issue into one of Gay Rights vs. Religion, saying that religion would die out as gay rights movement moves forward. This is how some of them view this. You need look no further than some of the violence and bigotry in California by gays over the voting on Proposition 8 to get a tiny glimps of how virulent this bigotry can become. No, sanctioning same-sex marriage won’t be a step toward ending bigotry, but will be a giant step in promoting it.

And I was pleased to see Mitt Romney reference the many other problems that same sex marriage could introduce. The ramifications of this “little” change in the definition of marriage are far-reaching, affecting education, churches, adoptive services, and our entire social structure. I think this should be the focus of our arguments in resisting this. We would be entering uncharted territory as a society, to embrace this. Where in human history has this been done before? Nowhere. Will it unravel the very fabric of society? We frankly don’t know, but we suspect it might.

About mesasmiles

By Dr. David Hall. Dr. Hall runs Infinity Dental Web, a small company that does Internet marketing for dentists. He has had a long-standing interest in politics and as a college student toyed with the idea of a political career.
This entry was posted in Gay Marriage and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Don’t let the Left frame the debate on same sex marriage

  1. Gaudior says:

    Oh, dear. You seem to be making a few mistakes.

    To be fair, the first was made by Mr. Gingrich himself. The Catholic church was not forced to close its adoption services. It was simply not given government funding for services it denied to many tax-payers. Catholic Charities were entirely welcome to continue their work– just without the government being involved. They chose to put their political outrage over other people getting rights above the work they could do.

    And where has it been done before? Besides any number of different cultures (ancient Greece, China, various Native American tribes, possibly the early Christians, etc, etc, etc), it’s been done in Massachusetts for almost a decade. The result? Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the United States, and marriages there are strong and healthy. That doesn’t look too unraveled to me.

    Comment by David Hall:
    Nice try, Gaudior.

    Catholic charities in Massachusetts did close their adoption services. Their state licensing was withdrawn over the gay marriage issue. See their statement of March 10, 2006: Boston’s Catholic Charities to stop adoption service over same-sex law. And if you read their statement, it hardly breathes a spirit of outrage, but one of discouraged resignation that no allowance could be made in the law for religious conscience.

    And your second point is all wet, too. Until the modern day, the definition of marriage has been the union of a man and a woman, in all societies of which I am aware. Yes, the societies you mention did have homosexual practices and in some cases did legitimize those to one degree or another, but you’re really pushing the matter to try to say that they changed the definition of marriage.

  2. tjohio says:

    “Where in human history has this been done before?”

    For starters:

    Netherlands – the first country to grant gay marriage on April 1, 2001.
    Belgium – the second country to grant gay marriage on Jan 30, 2003.
    Canada – the third country to grant gay marriage on June 28, 2005
    Spain – the fourth country to grant gay marriage on July 3, 2005.
    South Africa – the fifth country to grant gay marriage on Nov 30, 2006.
    Norway – the sixth country to grant gay marriage on May 11, 2008.
    Sweden – the seventh country to grant gay marriage on May 1, 2009.
    Portugal – the eighth country to grant gay marriage on May 17, 2010.
    Iceland – the ninth country to grant gay marriage on June 27, 2010.
    Argentina – the tenth country to grant gay marriage on July 15, 2010.

    Response by David Hall:
    TJ Ohio, you are totally missing the point, or you are intentionally distorting it. I am talking about the long-term effects of the changing of the definition of marriage. When we have people raised in a culture that has changed the definition of marriage, we do not know what the effect of that is. Civilizations don’t crumble in a couple of years or even in a decade, but history shows that they deteriorate over a span of a generation or two. You’re giving me a ten-year history of gay marriage, against a six-thousand-year social norm.

    Just like the effects of the welfare state are only now beginning to be felt in the destruction of the work ethic in Europe, the bankrupting of countries, and serious economic malaise. When children have been raised in a culture that rewards idleness and punishes success you end up with a growing number of people who choose the public dole as a career, and as that number reaches a critical mass the fabric of society crumbles.

    You destroy traditional notions of marriage, family, parenthood, and values, and the long-term effects can be impossible to predict.

Comments are closed.