- Dec 18, 2011
- 12,919
- 4,823
- 350
Just some food for thought. Libs will attack because I'm not one of them, but I wish for once I could get a few thoughtful answers.
I know some who would have been just fine with civil unions. Still a commitment and they get all the tax and insurance benefits of a married couple.
It seems that it wasn't gays crying for marriage, but rather those who dislike, or even hate, religion. The left often takes up causes that don't exist, at least not until they convince enough people that they should feel insulted, belittled or even outraged. The left has an agenda and they will use any means or any people to get what they want.
Insisting that gays must be able to use the term 'marriage' meant redefining it. It was never about the right to legally commit to another person and enjoy all the perks of being a legal couple.
This is an interesting article that does point out some things regarding the recent push for gay marriage. I don't expect any real discussion from the left, but I will remind you libs that I attended my niece's wedding and supported her and her girlfriend. Funny, they didn't care what the union was called. They wanted commitment and the ability to file joint taxes and cover each other on insurance. Marriage is a religious term adopted by lawmakers, but can anyone tell me why the language was more important than the act?
The left has never been supportive of marriage. Some feminists even called it legal slavery. Why the dismissal of any talk regarding civil unions that would have been the exact same thing only without the religious ties?
"The media created a false debate "marriage or no" to paint a battle between the evil bigots and righteous crusaders. No one mentioned the civil union approach. That solution was junked quickly, tipping the real target for using gays: religion. The Supreme Court even mentioned granting dignity in the ruling, which is comical considered how smeared marriage has become. If marriage is an oppressive institution for women, why push gays into it? If it is old and archaic, why do gays want it? Humpty Dumpty leftism strikes again! Marriage is awesome right now for this tiny group!
They want it because despite the smearing, we know the value of it. The emotional connection between couples. A newer wedding reception tradition is the anniversary dance. All married couples get on the dance floor to dance to one song. Every ten seconds the host asks couples married under X years to leave the floor. Those younger couples create a circle around those left dancing, and the couples are whittled down until it is the married couple with the longest tenure left. The crowd claps for the 50, 60 or 65 years the couple has been together. Some people will get teary-eyed because they recognize what those years mean. Usually, that couple shuffling on the dance floor is the elder statesmen duo of the family, and this wedding and the crowd is the extended product of their union. Song ends, the old man kisses his bride, and the new bride and groom hug the old couple. That long lived couple is the hoped for future for the new couple.
Everyone present understands that communal moment. Those dances make for great Kodak moments, but you would never see Hollywood push that. The media will push as much programming as possible to get you to forget the spiritual element to marriage. The weak-willed, who will forget they cried as they saw their grandparents dancing at a wedding, made the jump from civil unions for gays to marriage for gays because "Who cares? Marriage doesn’t matter anymore." That moment of past and future and the implications of children for a new generation to repeat the cycle is part of the sacred moment and public recognition of marriage.
That spirit and legitimacy could never be granted by a government in a contentious manner to homosexuals who cannot reproduce. This is lost on the egalitarian pushers, it is lost on the herd creatures who forget, but it is not lost on us."
http://redicecreations.com/article.php?id=33857
I know some who would have been just fine with civil unions. Still a commitment and they get all the tax and insurance benefits of a married couple.
It seems that it wasn't gays crying for marriage, but rather those who dislike, or even hate, religion. The left often takes up causes that don't exist, at least not until they convince enough people that they should feel insulted, belittled or even outraged. The left has an agenda and they will use any means or any people to get what they want.
Insisting that gays must be able to use the term 'marriage' meant redefining it. It was never about the right to legally commit to another person and enjoy all the perks of being a legal couple.
This is an interesting article that does point out some things regarding the recent push for gay marriage. I don't expect any real discussion from the left, but I will remind you libs that I attended my niece's wedding and supported her and her girlfriend. Funny, they didn't care what the union was called. They wanted commitment and the ability to file joint taxes and cover each other on insurance. Marriage is a religious term adopted by lawmakers, but can anyone tell me why the language was more important than the act?
The left has never been supportive of marriage. Some feminists even called it legal slavery. Why the dismissal of any talk regarding civil unions that would have been the exact same thing only without the religious ties?
"The media created a false debate "marriage or no" to paint a battle between the evil bigots and righteous crusaders. No one mentioned the civil union approach. That solution was junked quickly, tipping the real target for using gays: religion. The Supreme Court even mentioned granting dignity in the ruling, which is comical considered how smeared marriage has become. If marriage is an oppressive institution for women, why push gays into it? If it is old and archaic, why do gays want it? Humpty Dumpty leftism strikes again! Marriage is awesome right now for this tiny group!
They want it because despite the smearing, we know the value of it. The emotional connection between couples. A newer wedding reception tradition is the anniversary dance. All married couples get on the dance floor to dance to one song. Every ten seconds the host asks couples married under X years to leave the floor. Those younger couples create a circle around those left dancing, and the couples are whittled down until it is the married couple with the longest tenure left. The crowd claps for the 50, 60 or 65 years the couple has been together. Some people will get teary-eyed because they recognize what those years mean. Usually, that couple shuffling on the dance floor is the elder statesmen duo of the family, and this wedding and the crowd is the extended product of their union. Song ends, the old man kisses his bride, and the new bride and groom hug the old couple. That long lived couple is the hoped for future for the new couple.
Everyone present understands that communal moment. Those dances make for great Kodak moments, but you would never see Hollywood push that. The media will push as much programming as possible to get you to forget the spiritual element to marriage. The weak-willed, who will forget they cried as they saw their grandparents dancing at a wedding, made the jump from civil unions for gays to marriage for gays because "Who cares? Marriage doesn’t matter anymore." That moment of past and future and the implications of children for a new generation to repeat the cycle is part of the sacred moment and public recognition of marriage.
That spirit and legitimacy could never be granted by a government in a contentious manner to homosexuals who cannot reproduce. This is lost on the egalitarian pushers, it is lost on the herd creatures who forget, but it is not lost on us."
http://redicecreations.com/article.php?id=33857
