| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front |
| Queer allies |
| 2003-12-02 |
| Hat tip to InstaPundit EFL The Massachusetts Supreme Court decision to legalize homosexual marriage in the Bay state re-ignited the culture wars. The Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, perhaps the preeminent liberal Jewish organization in Washington, DC, applauded the ruling. Religious-minded conservatives, however, were horrified. They are determined to stop the gay rights movement in its tracks. At what price? JewishWorldReview.com has discovered that prominent religious conservatives — Jews, Catholics and Evangelical Christians — are allied with a radical Islamic group to stop gay marriage. Pushing a constitutional amendment that would restrict marriage to heterosexuals, they work with the Islamic Society of North America. What is ISNA? According to terrorism expert Steve Emerson, ISNA: — has held fundraisers for terrorists (e.g., after Hamas leader Musa Marzuk was arrested, it raised money for his defense, claiming he was innocent and not connected to terrorism)In 2001, JewishWorldReview.com reported exclusively that another problematic group, the American Muslim Council, served on the Alliance for Marriage advisory board with Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America’s Washington lobbyist, Nathan Diament. Within hours of the story being published, the union withdrew from the advisory board. |
| Posted by:Dragon Fly |
| #5 The real problem that most conservatives have with gay marriage is a simple one. Namely, why mess with something (heterosexual marriage) that has worked reasonably well for six thousand years? There are also other important questions to consider, such as: why take the risk? Do the potential pluses of trying something new outweigh the potential minuses? What is it EXACTLY that gays are after in the long run? Do they even know themselves? The answer, simply put, is no – it isn't worth messing with marriage, or at lest not yet. The benefits of suddenly abandoning the norm which we, as a species, have developed over the millenniums are vastly outweighed by the potential consequences. For example, it has yet to be proven conclusively to most people's satisfaction that gay male couples make good parents for male children, largely because the public examination of such things is very recent. There really isn't that much reliable, unbiased data to go on when it comes to a social experiment this radical and new. Not everything that sounds good on paper works out in practice (re: the Soviet Union). Furthermore, until the gay rights movement does more – much, much more – to distance themselves from groups like NAMBLA many conservative Americans will never feel comfortable giving them unlimited access to children. Which is what this entire debate is really about - child rearing. The only way a culture, or in this case a sub-culture, can survive is to reproduce, thereby passing along its values and way of life. Nature or nurture arguments aside, Gay culture (as opposed to homosexuality) must be passed on like any other to a generation of young. In the long run, having a few young people "come out" each year after they move to a major metropolitan area and have sex for the first time isn't a reliable way to propagate an entire culture with its own social mores, slang, businesses, political views, and so forth. You have GOT to have children so that you can create a new generation of your culture. Otherwise, you are going to get absorbed and die out. |
| Posted by: Secret Master 2003-12-3 1:18:30 PM |
| #4 meh, there is no explicit right of marriage, buh consenting adult straights have the right to marry whom they wish so it falls under the assumed right category, As everyone is supposed to be treated equaly 's no reason bents shouldn have the same rights I or you do. unless of course you are a pathetic exscuse for an human being, much less an American (you know that whole free country thing) and believe you have the right to strangle other's ability to pursue happyness and dont give me any crap about "corrupting family values", the only person who can corrupt your family's values is you and your spouse and besides that pooch got analy screwed with a spiked baseball bat a long time ago, more marriages fail than succeed, though I suppose if you want to get a loony you could blame that on gays.. |
| Posted by: dcreeper 2003-12-2 4:05:44 PM |
| #3 "really f@#ked the goat"? I wonder how they would rule on that one. |
| Posted by: Captain Holly 2003-12-2 2:14:11 PM |
| #2 "why stop at just two?" Or 'why stop at 10, she's plenty old enough!' The 'judges' in the People's Republic of massachusetts really fucked the goat with this idiocy. |
| Posted by: victorvictoria 2003-12-2 1:29:33 PM |
| #1 Hat tip to Power Line: the sound of the other shoe dropping in Utah. If they can find a few justices in Massachussets willing to define marriage one way, they can surely find four more to say "why stop at just two?" |
| Posted by: eLarson 2003-12-2 12:18:46 PM |