Andrew Breitbart writes in his commentary "I fear the vicious and hypocritical path that the activist gay left is headed on will eventually be met with a backlash. If it already hasn't." For a self described "gay-friendly" person, this seems more than alarming.
I consider myself as a tolerant person, who wishes the same in return. I found a sigh of relief in his commentary. I have found that those who wish to embrace diversity have a rather narrow interpretation of what diversity includes. Diversity includes all positions along the spectrum from radically conservative ideas to radically liberal ideas. Diversity also includes traditionally held positions and values. If we exclude any of these positions, we cannot embrace diversity as it is. You may feel free to not include any of these groups, but in doing so, you cannot correctly claim diversity.
BONUS (from despair.com):
3 comments:
Oh, this one is great (the non-inspirational quote).
How would government non-involvement in marriage work, when so many legal decisions are based on whether or not people are married? Would government simply recognize any religiously-sanctioned marriage as a marriage for legal purposes? And if so, what about the criticism that this would be "establishing" a religion? How would atheists get married? (Which reminds me of the joke about atheists who yell out during sex, "Oh, scientific method!")
If marriage is a religious practice then it should be given to religions. As it stands now, governments have coopted a religious practice as a governmental function, to endorse the union of two people. What governments should do is to confer a bundle of legal rights on couples. Right now "marriage" conveys these rights as well as societal acceptance of the union. We could call this bundle of rights a civil union, a power of attorney ceremony, or anything that governments want to call it. I have heard many gays argue that they want to be married because marriage conveys a societal approval beyond that of a civil union. I think that governments shouldn't be allowed to license people to have a religious marriage performed for hetero or homo sexually oriented couples. Instead everyone should get a bundle of rights and contracts from the government.
It is a principle of the playground: if everyone can't have it, then no one can have it. Give me the ball.
Post a Comment