A few days back I wrote a post that explained the reason I believed Romney should have used the instance of Ric Grenell (Romney’s former gay foreign policy advisor) leaving the campaign to push for toned down rhetoric coming from some of the people who were coming out harshly against the hireling.
During this process, I let it be known that I am a person who is a supporter of gay marriage. I also said that DESPITE what happened Romney should have used this to talk to the voice of intolerance out there. Many people had something to say, and I respect others views, even if they do not respect mine. I find it hard to respect those who come with insupportable claims and ad hominem attacks. It is not that I am expecting to confront many literati on comment boards, but it would have been less liberal like to come with substantial arguments.
Because I do feel this is an important topic, and an issue that is not going away, I decided that I would point out some of the things that were said to me, and provide a rebuttal.
First, I will start with the nonsense that people do when they have nothing valid to add to the conversation. I have been called a liberal and told I was indoctrinated, which I guess by that logic, everyone is. How many people have not listened to others views? I will cover more on that later in the post. I am not trying to confront people, only ideas. You can find them all here.
I have been told these things here:
“The gay activists don’t just want tolerance they want everyone to submit to them. They want everyone to embrace, condone, and help them indoctrinate people to see homosexuality not just “equal” but the same as heterosexuality by force. They want the whole world to change to accommodate them, so they don’t feel bad about being gay.”
My answer would be “in what instance does a gay person ask that someone summits to them. If asking for the right that everyone else has is the same as asking someone to submit to them, then how is it ok that anybody ever asked for their rights. This makes what our founders did a horrible thing, considering that at the time, they had chosen to do something that was against the law. If this was true, then the whole debate over civil rights was attuned to wanting “the whole world to change to accommodate them, so they don’t feel bad about” about being (fill in the blank).
“Social conservatives in this country don’t want to stick gays in ovens or slaughter them. They are the type of people who think everything can be fixed and corrected.”
I am not sure who thinks social conservatives want these things; in fact, 9 times out of 10 I agree with the battle that social conservatives are fighting; just never when it requires government to force a prohibition on an individual’s rights, when it does not affect others. Abortion kills babies, clear moral wrong, and in most people’s eyes if it happened out of the womb, retribution would be called for. Gay marriage is not so black and white, so to speak. There is not real evidence that says a gay people are a threat to society. Some people thought these same things about minorities, and the country did not fall apart, it became stronger. An ideology (socialism, liberalism) started the downward spiral, but not a group.
“The “centrists” who think it is bad for a candidate to wear his religion on the sleeve are now the ones who want a guy like Romney to put on the rainbows and inverted purple triangles? Get real”
I think this is an over generalization. Supporting gay marriage does not even mean you support the lifestyle, only the person’s right to make that choice without government intervention. Wanting Romney to stand up to, people who got upset at him for a hiring, a gay person is not the same as asking him to abandon his own religion. How he lives, his life is up to him. At my church, we are taught to not go out a picket and make a fuss over what the gay community does. Those actions do nothing to bring people to Christ, and only turn people off on the religion. I see no good that comes from being intolerant of gay people’s right to marry.
“They want kids indoctrinated in schools to think like the want them to. They want to erase thousands of years of common sense.”
“The GLAAD types want government to intervene on their behalf to “protect” kids who feel bad for being gay. They want government to spend more money on diseases that affect a lot. They want the government to beat evil social conservatives over the head for them.”
“They ally themselves with groups that want the government to bail out people of the consequences of things that happen in the bedroom.”
I have never heard of a school that teaches people to be gay, in fact, school is often a hostile place for gay children. Bullies have cause gay children to kill themselves rather than face the bullying again. Suicide was an easier choice to a child than facing an intolerant bully at school. If being gay were a choice, the kid would probably just choose not to be gay anymore. I have never met a gay person who wants to see Christians be forced into doing something against their own morals. What they want is to be left alone to live their life the way they want to. (more on Christian fears later)
“claim to be Christian and “conservative” … then repeat left wing social activist talking points. Oh my… the social conservatives need to be tamed. oh please.”
Wow, really, if you do not agree with everything every conservative believes in, then you must be spewing liberal talking points. What about gay conservatives: are they now liberal-gay- conservatives. Yea, that vacuous idea is as idiotic as it sounds. How is allowing gay marriage a socialist ideal? I look at it as a conservative ideal, because it involves allowing people to make their own choices.
Moreover, here is my favorite, because of the tact it takes.
“Intolerance is good when applied to appropriate situations.”
“You’re full of leftist propaganda in this diary, center, and you apparently do not recognize your intolerance of social conservatives in your tirades. This is the sloppiest argument I have ever heard from you. You sound like an indoctrinated child educated in the public school systems. Think you need to go back to the drawing board on this one.”
This person also decided to dedicate a diary on why intolerance against gays is a good thing in some situations, like that is even up for discussion. Nevertheless, just because it is good for some things, does not mean it is not bad for others.
This person called me an “Indoctrinated child”, what a lazy argument against gay marriage. I could say the same thing about him, except I tend to look at people as individuals. I deduct my views on gay marriage from empirical evidence learned through talking to people who are gay, those who are not, and the fact my sister is gay, and she was that way long before she was sexual. The whole family knew she was a tomboy, and she never liked men. I do not know a more caring and loving person in this world. Nevertheless, for the person who said this, I wonder if you really have a reason for being intolerant, a label you have begun to wear proudly.
Here is one of the only logical arguments I read, and one I partly agree with.
“There is a portion of the Republican Party that will not support Romney if he even goes near Gay Marriage…or Gay anything. You might not think it is fair…but that is how a portion…the ultra Right think about it and you and I can’t change that. With the election really coming down to the Latino vote…as I have always said…alienating the right will really do us in and Obama wins.”
“There are lots of people that are on the government dole. You are in college…how many people on Sallie Mae…using it as “INCOME” AND NOT WORKING? He’s already got a majority of student.”
“With the defense of marriage act coming up for votes in NC…I can tell you that the Bible Belt does not want Gays dictating that a Church (1st Amendment Rights) has to perform a marriage by their minister in their Church…somewhere out West they rented rooms from the Church and wanted the minister to perform the marriage ceremony. Romney can’t afford to lose the South…and that is just the reality of it.” “FYI…I think “
“Gays should have civil unions…but I am opposed to Gay Marriage because it is a sacrament.”
I really do know people who do not really care about going to college and go for the money. As for whether the issue is politically expedient, I do not think Romney should make any more choice based on this. I also do not think the Bible belt will stay home, because if Romney had come out in support of a conservative approach to dealing with the gay marriage issue, he would have forced Obamas hand, because believe you me, if Obama knew Romney was going after this group, he would have to. Now this would make it so that Social conservatives will have to worry about the most pro-abortion president in modern history being reelected, all because of an issue that would happen anyways.
I would hope that social conservatives are smart enough to understand that this issue is not a worth throwing all other issues out the window. In addition, I think many gay people are fiscal conservative, and they would feel that Romney was brave in taking a stand.
As for marriage being a sacrament, and whether or not pastors should have to marry gay people, I do not think religion has a monopoly on marriage; in fact, many people just go to court to get married. Those who do not believe in god often have a notary public marry them. They only need a public officer constituted by law to be married. Moreover, I do not see anybody saying these marriages were not real, or that these people should not be allowed to get marriage.
I believe this is a conservative issue, a limited government issue, and in no way do I believe that the church should be forced to marry a gay person. That would be very liberal like, and it would be an overreach by government.