Only 25 years ago, you'd have been given a straitjacket for speculating as follows.
Outside of the privacy of their homes, young girls will be discouraged from imagining one day marrying their prince charming – to do so would be declared "heterosexist," morally equivalent to racist. Rather, they will be told to imagine a prince or a princess. ...
Any advocacy of man-woman marriage alone will be regarded morally as hate speech, and shortly thereafter it will be deemed so in law.
Companies that advertise engagement rings will have to show a man putting a ring on a man's finger – if they show only women fingers, they will be boycotted just as a company having racist ads would be now.
Films that only show man-woman married couples will be regarded as antisocial and as morally irresponsible as films that show people smoking have become.
Traditional Jews and Christians – i.e. those who believe in a divine Scripture – will be marginalized. Already Catholic groups in Massachusetts have abandoned adoption work since they will only allow a child to be adopted by a married couple as the Bible defines it – a man and a woman.
Anyone who advocates marriage between a man and a woman will be morally regarded the same as racist. And soon it will be a hate crime.
Indeed – and this is the ultimate goal of many of the same-sex marriage activists – the terms "male" and "female," "man" and "woman" will gradually lose their significance. ... On the intellectual and cultural left, "male" and "female" are deemed social constructs that have little meaning. ...
Oh, there's plenty of work for the lawyers there.
HT: the Hat
But I thought it was all about equality?
ReplyDeleteGuess not...
"Traditional Jews and Christians – i.e. those who believe in a divine Scripture – will be marginalized."
ReplyDeleteIt's almost as if the dude is suggesting this would be a bad thing! If Religion is marginalized and relegated to the same status as astrology, mythology, dousing and flat-Earth society members, this would be a better world for everyone-gay or straight!
Yeah, because in the history of the world, even those non-sensical things haven't caused as much death and destruction as the atheism you embrace.
ReplyDeleteUntil the First Amendment is repealed, and you build a time machine to go back and alter the history of Western Civilization, Jews and Christians will ALWAYS be more important than ignorant slugs such as yourself. Even moreso than - dare I say it - the gay activists who care nothing for the rule of law in this land.
Sorry if it hurts your feelings, but the day will come when you realize the Judeo-Christian values you so despise are the reason you're able to espouse the unintelligent beliefs you possess.
JIJAWM:
ReplyDeleteIn taking some time away, I apologize for the "ignorant" remark.
I just cannot fathom how someone who seems so intelligent can show such contempt - not disagreement - for religion.
I guess I do not understand how in a country where free expression of religion is so important that it was enshrined in the First Amendment (and in pretty explicit language), you can ignore or downplay the importance of Judeo-Christian values played in the establishment and continuation of Western Civilization.
The notion that we'd be "better off" without religion is pretty solidly contradicted by history. Ask how religious-free governments worked out for people in Russia, in China, North Korea, and many other places. Or the 100 million people slaughtred in the name of secularism, by secular governments that are supposed to be so much more compassionate and tolerant.
In regards to the gay marriage issue, you are attempting to substitute an issue of non-discrimination for a clear criminalization of traditional, correct, moral thought.
First off, can we please stop using this tired story about the Mao and Stalin regimes being based on atheism? That's so ignorant. Those dudes were strong believers. Their religion was Communism. They became dogmatic about it. Dogma is more of a problem than whatever nonsense is behind it.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, whether the founding fathers provided for free expression of religion in the bill of rights says nothing about the validity of the content of such expressions. And I'm talking about content. Of course you and the dude in this article are free to spout your drivel. That's not the issue.
Third,
It's actually jaw-dropping htat you think that religion as a whole fostered freedom instead of standing in the way of freedom. Especially freedome of speech. Perhaps there were a few instances of religion contributing to American freedom and progress (the Protestant work ethic for example, but you dudes are Catholics, right? Ehh, what's the difference really...) but as a whole, religion has stood in the way of science and economics and progress in general quite often.