Trenchant_Troll
ad hominid
Registered: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 24745 |
quote:
Originally posted by CHiPsJr
There's that "silent majority" again. Nixon lives! etc...etc....etc...
The civil rights movement was a 'perfect storm' that had been brewing for a very long time and that involved a large minority and a broad range of supporters. Even then there was backlash amid the progress and I need not educate you on that.
The gay movement in this country loves to wistfully compare its cause to the cause of that crucial period in time. However, there are a large number of blacks that take a great deal of offence at that notion. Like it or not, the inherency of homosexuality remains a subject of dispute, despite those that would pretend that it is not. The inherency of the pigmentation of one's skin, on the other hand, is without dispute,even among the bigotted. Likewise, the percentage of gays in this country is miniscule in comparison with that of the racial minorities they wish to identify with. Regardless of this argument, real change can only be arrived at by concensus. Yes, it often takes a spark to ignite the fire of concensus, but nevertheless, the tinder must be dry.
The civil rights movement was an eruption of conscience that had been left out to dry too long and so it lit with great violence, but remains burning to this day despite the damp wood that remains. Like it or not, there exists no such critical mass of public conscience related to the issue of homosexuality. Lacking that and driven by the desire to make a fire of damp wood, the gay community has attempted to use a flamethrower. Instead of working diligently toward the concept and acceptance of civil unions, in their haste to be accepted, they grabbed for the brass ring of marriage; an institution based in religion in a very religious nation.
While I personally do not understand or support the gay lifestyle, there are many lifestyles I don't understand or support. Therefore, I am not necessarily opposed to the concept of gay civil unions. I frankly think that all state recognized 'marriages' should be defined as civil unions and leave the choice of religious marriage to the discretion of the religious individual(s). Having said that, we must all consider this issue very carefully. Not because of the matter of homosexuals having legally recognized unions, but because in doing so a Rubicon is crossed. If individuals of the same sex are permited to join in civil union, marriage or no marriage, what is to keep a father from joining with a son, mother with daughter, or same sex siblings from following suit? There could be no 'genetic' argument against it since no children could not be produced by such unions. How many would support such unions? And, moreover, who could argue against them if gay unions are accepted as law? Once across this Rubicon we will all be strangers in a strange new land awaiting the next seismic shift in societal norms; one perhaps none of us can anticipate now, but may regret later.
Therefore, I say slow down, people, and think very, very carefully what you are willing to accept and what you are not, and craft your roadmap for the future with equally careful consideration.
TT
__________________
I think the best possible way to show Iran that nuclear weapons are not what they want is to give them one. - Steven Colbert
Last edited by Trenchant_Troll on 04-06-2004 at 08:41 PM
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
![[new thread]](/images/vb/button_newthread_off.png "Post New Thread")
![[post reply]](/images/vb/button_newreply_off.png "Post A Reply")
04-06-2004 03:18 PM
