Reminder: Why Are We Fighting For Traditional Marriage?

children need a mom and a dad

Tonight, I was participating in a Facebook Fan Page for Marriage.

One commenter said:

“There are no RIGHTS to a mom and dad! If there were, same sex adoption wouldn’t be legal! Stop talking about rights that don’t exists as your main argument!”

Wow. Usually people don’t admit out loud that they don’t think children have a right to a mom and a dad. Usually they try to deflect and talk about how children just need two people to love them. Usually they can’t bring themselves to admit they are advocating stripping a child on purpose of their natural parental rights.

It’s always shocking to me.

And sad.

And supremely unfair. The children are born at the mercy of adult wants.

Happy Sunday.

<>the pomegranate apple

———————

photo

Advertisements

15 Comments

  1. Michael said,

    May 25, 2009 at 4:39 am

    On May 17th, D. Rolling Keary said, “They refer to “antigay violence” as a “major source of stress for lesbian, gay, and bisexual people.” That’s interesting. I wonder why Matthew Shepard is the only incident they can point to to support that claim, and that was more than a decade ago! AND it is not entirely certain that there was any anti-homosexual motivation in that crime’s commission to begin with!”

    http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/19553401/detail.html#

  2. Kelly said,

    May 25, 2009 at 8:39 am

    This is ludicrous! Of course children have a right to a Mom and Dad. If they didn’t, every child born into this world would be born to a same-sex couple. Last I heard, everybody on this planet was conceived by and born to a male father and female mother. It’s a sad world we live in when you know that people can’t say anything good about traditional marriage and traditional families without being called bigots and homophobes. I am praying for the future of marriage and families everyday.

  3. Euripides said,

    May 25, 2009 at 9:16 am

    The same sex marriage advocates aren’t thinking about children. They are thinking only about themselves and their selfish motives to overthrow or neuter marriage as an institution. It’s all about them, them, them. There is nothing left for the welfare of the children.

    What a sad state of society when it gives up the future of its children for personal gratification.

  4. Frisco said,

    May 25, 2009 at 4:25 pm

    I guess the same would apply for parents who vote down new school budgets that would provide new academic opportunities to children and enhance the learning environment because the parents do not want to pay more property taxes.

    I don’t see anyone jumping on the bandwagon to decry the sad state of society due to selfish, tax-paying parents who are depriving their children of a better education.

    If you’re going to fight against gay marriage, stop cowering behind the universal image of childhood innocent to gain support. It’s rather cliche.

  5. Euripides said,

    May 25, 2009 at 4:57 pm

    Frisco:

    I’m not sure what analogy you make here between paying property taxes for school and supporting the institution of marriage. You’ll need to stop using the old stereotype of conservatives who, in your mind, can’t see the difference between paying taxes for education and paying taxes to feed the giant federal debt. Contrary to stereotypical liberal beliefs, conservatives can indeed see a value in some systems of government.

    And why should we stop stating the truth about the effects of the gay agenda on children and the damage neutering marriage does for the family, and by extension, the American society? Because you seem to hate children proves that someone in our society must continue to care for and think of the children without the strings of marital farce and selfish wants attached.

  6. Chino Blanco said,

    May 25, 2009 at 5:32 pm

    Yup, it’s you versus the child-haters, Euripides.

    Quite the powerful argument you’ve got there, accusing your opponents of hating children. Run with it.

  7. Frisco said,

    May 26, 2009 at 11:01 am

    Actually, I am a conservative and a proud member of the Republican Party. You’ll need to stop sing the old stereotype that all gay-rights supporters are raging liberals.

  8. Euripides said,

    May 26, 2009 at 11:18 am

    Frisco:

    I’m not sure how to stop “sing” the stereotype. I could believe you’re a Republican but cannot see a single statement of yours that would lead me to believe you have any conservative values. Your statement about taxes doesn’t indicate fiscal conservatism, and your implications for same sex marriage don’t indicate social conservatism. What else are we missing here?

  9. Brad said,

    May 31, 2009 at 2:53 pm

    You go Frisco!!! Long live the Republican party and long live heterosexual marriage AND long live same sex marriage! Actually, the Republican party’s strong stance against SSM concerns me as the younger population strongly favor SSM and I believe SSM will be a part of the Democratic platform in the near future. In California for instance, younger voters voted 2-1 against Prop 8 and those 65+ voted 2-1 in favor of the prop. It is a very important issue with the younger voters and will probably be one of he major determining factors in their choice of a political party. Many cite that voters tend to become more conservative as they get older but I don’t think their minds will change over this issue as the younger people are more comfortable with people being gay and they realize that gays aren’t radical activists looking to destroy the fabric of our society and tear down the institution of marriage. They are just good people looking to be happy and raise their families in the best way they can. As a fellow Republican, I believe we should allow them to marry in order to support them in their desire to raise a strong family that adds to our society.

  10. Frisco said,

    June 1, 2009 at 12:01 pm

    Thank you, Brad. It’s time the Republican Party stops being hijacked by fundamentalist Christians and return to its original platform of personal freedom and limited government, not some sort of neo-theocracy.

  11. beetlebabee said,

    June 1, 2009 at 12:03 pm

    Frisco, Neo-Theocracy?? Do you know what a theocracy is? Interesting take on the relationship between freedom and morality. What is your take on the founding fathers and their open display of faith within government?

  12. Frisco said,

    June 1, 2009 at 12:56 pm

    Yes, thank you.

    I am perfectly comfortable with their level of religious engagement. Since a large group of them were Deists, such as Jefferson and Franklin, and the rest of them were not intent on setting up Christian morality on the rest of the nation, I would say they did a rather good job separating their personal beliefs from government.

  13. Euripides said,

    June 1, 2009 at 1:00 pm

    bb:

    It’s obvious what Frisco is saying, he’ll accept the Republicans as long as their brand of conservatism doesn’t conflict with his vision of social activism. If Republicans dare to express social conservatism, well then, that’s threatening to his world view and must be soundly condemned as Christian hogwash.

    Social conservatism cannot, obviously, exist without Christian fundamentalists dictating the true social order that we labored under in the United States. Why, if it hadn’t been for secularists like Abraham Lincoln or the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. we’d still be a nation under the thrall of slavery! All fundamentalist Christian social conservatives want to do is return us to those dark days of human bondage.

    And, of course, as we all know, the institution of marriage was invented by the evil Christians. It was Pope Pius VI in 1775 who was the culprit. He invented marriage specifically to keep homosexual people in eternal servitude to the great Theocracy. (We can also blame fundamentalists Christians for inventing the black plague in 1370 and athletes foot in 1952.) Why, it wasn’t until the noble Berkeley hippies broke the power of the American theocracy in 1964 that we enjoy any freedoms whatsoever. How the United States existed until the hippie movement is beyond understanding.

    Today it is the neo-theocrats, of course, who want the United States to return to those dark and evil days, demand that we return to the theocratic insistence of marriage as the Christians originally invented it, return to slavery, and keep all non-theocratists under guard at Gitmo.

    I thought Frisco was pretty obvious in what he was saying.

  14. Frisco said,

    June 1, 2009 at 1:03 pm

    Exactly what I am saying! Thank you Euripides for reading between the lines for all others who could not.

  15. beetlebabee said,

    June 1, 2009 at 3:06 pm

    ah, I think you’re right Euripides. That’s what I thought. Interesting take for an objectivist blogger. Sounds revisionist.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: