The Rise of the Same-Sex Marriage Dissidents

[Finrock]

Some Background:

 

Recently the CEO of Mozilla (makers of Firefox) resigned from his position after he was attacked by the media and other same-sex advocates when it came to light that he supported California's Proposition 8. Those who went after Eich wanted him to "apologize" for his views. Instead of recanting, Eich resigned.

 

There have been many views since then as to what this completely unreasonable attack on a person's conscience means and how hypocritical the same-sex marriage camp is. Even many who are fierce advocates of same-sex marriage have been disturbed by what happened. In any case, I came across this article which I believe makes some very important and relevant points and shows how the ideology of same-sex marriage is being used in our society to rule, control, and destroy freedom of thought. The author of the article uses an essay written by Vaclav Havel, "Power of the Powerless" to make her point.

 

I quote a portion below and provide the link to the full article written by Mollie Hemingway:

 

 

Quote

To explain how dissent works, Havel introduced the manager of a hypothetical fruit-and-vegetable shop who places in his window, among the onions and carrots, the slogan: “Workers of the world, unite!” He’s not actually enthusiastic about the sign’s message. It’s just one of the things that people in a post-totalitarian system do even if they “never think about” what it means. He does it because everyone does it. It’s what you do to get along in life and live “in harmony with society.” (For our purposes, you can imagine that slogan is a red equal sign that you put up on your Facebook page.)

 

 

The subtext of the grocer’s sign is “I do what I must do. I behave in the manner expected of me.” It protects him from supervisors above and informants below.

 

Havel is skeptical of ideology. He says that dictatorships can just use raw power, but “the more complex the mechanisms of power become, the larger and more stratified the society they embrace, and the longer they have operated historically … the greater the importance attached to the ideological excuse.” We don’t have a dictatorship, obviously, but we do have complex mechanisms of power and larger and more stratified society.

 

In any case, individuals need not believe the lies of an ideology so much as behave as though they do, or at least tolerate them in silence or get along with those who work with them. “For by this very fact, individuals confirm the system, fulfill the system, make the system, are the system,” Havel says.

 

She further writes:

 

 

 

Quote

OK, let’s step back. What does any of this have to do with views on marriage? Well, I know that we’ve had years of criminally one-sided media coverage, cowardly political leaders and elite cultural views that have conveyed to you that the only reason anyone might think sexual complementarity is key to marriage is bigotry. You may have even internalized this message. You may need to hold on to this belief for reasons of tribalism or pride. But in the spirit of Jon Stewart’s poster shown up at the top, which reads, “I may disagree with you but I’m pretty sure you’re not Hitler,” let’s go on an open-minded journey where we seek to understand the views of others without characterizing them as Hitler-like. It’s difficult in these times, but we can do it.

 

 

So what is the difference between marriage and other relationships?

OK. We probably already understand relationships have value, right? Assuming we’re not sociopaths, we do. So what is the difference between marriage and other relationships? There’s no question marriage has been treated dramatically differently than other relationships by governments and society. Why? Is it that it features a more vibrant or emotional connection? Or is there some feature that is a difference in kind – that marks it out as something that ought to be socially structured? We usually don’t want government in our other relationships, right? So why is marriage singled out throughout all time and human history as a different type of recognized relationship?

 

Well, what singled it out was that sex was involved. Sex. Knocking boots. The bump and grind. Dancing in the sheets. Making the beast with two backs. Doing the cha-cha. And so on and so forth. And why does that matter? Well, there’s precisely one bodily system for which each of us only has half of the system. It’s the one that involves sex between one man and one woman. It’s with respect to that system that the unit is the mated pair. In that system, it’s not just a relationship that is the union of minds, wills or important friendships. It’s the literal union of bodies. In sexual congress, in intercourse between a man and a woman, you are literally coordinated to a single bodily end.

 

There’s one bodily system for which each of us only has half of the system.

In every other respect we as humans act as individual organisms except when it comes to intercourse between men and women — then we work together as one flesh. Coordination toward that end — even when procreation is not achieved — makes the unity here. This is what marriage law was about. Not two friends building a house together. Or two people doing other sexual activities together. It was about the sexual union of men and women and a refusal to lie about what that union and that union alone produces: the propagation of humanity. This is the only way to make sense of marriage laws throughout all time and human history. Believing in this truth is not something that is wrong, and should be a firing offense. It’s not something that’s wrong, but should be protected speech. It’s actually something that’s right. It’s right regardless of how many people say otherwise. If you doubt the truth of this reality, consider your own existence, which we know is due to one man and one woman getting together. Consider the significance of what this means for all of humanity, that we all share this.

 

 

Any my favorite quote:

 

 

Quote

Perhaps there should have been a bit of a burden of proof on those who wanted to change the institution — something beyond crying “Bigot!” in a crowded theater.

 

Please read the article and share your thoughts: The Rise Of The Same-Sex Marriage Dissidents

 

EDIT: I can't get the link to work either so here is the URL: http://thefederalist.com/2014/04/08/the-rise-of-the-same-sex-marriage-dissidents/

 

-Finrock

[Finrock]

If someone can tell me how to fix the quotes or even fix them for me, I'd be very grateful.

 

-Finrock

[Lakumi]

While I think forcing someone to resign because he had different political views was a bit much, I still believe in same sex marriage. I always have and always will.

Whenever a majority represses a minority, the majority always think they are the ones being attacked, their views at risk.

I bet all those people against civil rights said a lot of the same things.

Blacks and white's shouldn't marry, people should be able to deny business to blacks because they are black and free speech gives the person the right to say they don't want blacks in their bakery or what have you.

I could go on but I hope you see the parallels... Not all that different.

[The Folk Prophet]

Not all that different.

 

????  Did you even read the article?

[prisonchaplain]

What concerns me is the number of articles doubling-down on the Mozilla approach.  Boundaries are being drawn.  The most adament of the LBGTQI folk have come to believe that they were/are an oppressed minority, and that those who disagree with them are genocidal.  Thus, they may indeed call for tolerance and accommodation, while affording no mercy to traditional marriage advocates.  They see no hypocrisy, because they are defending a weak minority.  The evil bully majority deserves no support.  They must be isolated, astrocized, and even 'disappeared.'  I've seen this argued. 

 

Lord Acton was right.  Power does corrupt.

[Lakumi]

????  Did you even read the article?

 

Yeah more responding to the guy being fired, the article will need a much larger reply

[The Folk Prophet]

...and that those who disagree with them are genocidal.

 

I am skeptical that they really believe this. Seems more like a tactic to win debate and force agenda.

[applepansy]

Thank you for posting the article Finrock.  

 

I'm seeing the LBGT agenda silencing more and more people.  We have gone from what has been viewed as "persecution" of LGBT to "persecution" of those who oppose Same Sex Marriage (SSM).  I just read an article earlier this week about the photographer who refused to photograph a SSM.  She lost in court and has to pay a huge fine.  It will put her out of business.  But that is what they want.  Silence all opposition even if it means destroying lives.

 

People will go along to get along.  That's human nature.  Sadly, its the silence that has gotten us here.

[Traveler]

While I think forcing someone to resign because he had different political views was a bit much, I still believe in same sex marriage. I always have and always will.

Whenever a majority represses a minority, the majority always think they are the ones being attacked, their views at risk.

I bet all those people against civil rights said a lot of the same things.

Blacks and white's shouldn't marry, people should be able to deny business to blacks because they are black and free speech gives the person the right to say they don't want blacks in their bakery or what have you.

I could go on but I hope you see the parallels... Not all that different.

 

Interesting post.  For myself, being a scientist and engineer I try to understand rhetorical logic and how parameters actually affect complex systems.  I have become an advocate fractal modeling especially as applied in modeling algorisms defined in Chaos Theory.  I do not so much mind that segments of our society support homosexual marriage.   But I am concerned with statements like “I always have and always will”.  To be honest I am concerned that supporters of homosexual marriage resort to such tactics in dealing with sensitive social issues rather than intelligently (intelligently meaning a learning and changing process) consider an issue.   I believe that the refusal to consider alternatives and variant viewpoints is the essence of everything that is evil and bad in prejudice and bigotry.

 

I am personally open to discussions where people have carefully considered their viewpoints and have logic and reason to their conclusions.  It is not so much that I am against homosexual marriage – as I cannot logically realize any possible social benefit – especially in using the force of law to define something for which there is no actual benefit.  It is logical to me that if law is used to force something upon a society that there ought to be some actual benefit to that society as a result of such force of law.  I believe there are reasons to support traditional marriages and that traditional families can be shown to be economically beneficial as well as the best means to provide a next generation for a sustainable society.  In fact I believe that traditional marriage is so important to a stable society that I am concerned, especially concerned with selfish or self-serving efforts to change the parameters of marriage that do not result in any actual benefit for society.

 

I am interested, Lakumi, if as an advocate of homosexual marriage if you can provide even one unique benefit for society that homosexual marriage provides.

[The Folk Prophet]

Interesting post.  For myself, being a scientist and engineer I try to understand rhetorical logic and how parameters actually affect complex systems.  I have become an advocate fractal modeling especially as applied in modeling algorisms defined in Chaos Theory.  I do not so much mind that segments of our society support homosexual marriage.   But I am concerned with statements like “I always have and always will”.  To be honest I am concerned that supporters of homosexual marriage resort to such tactics in dealing with sensitive social issues rather than intelligently (intelligently meaning a learning and changing process) consider an issue.   I believe that the refusal to consider alternatives and variant viewpoints is the essence of everything that is evil and bad in prejudice and bigotry.

 

I am personally open to discussions where people have carefully considered their viewpoints and have logic and reason to their conclusions.  It is not so much that I am against homosexual marriage – as I cannot logically realize any possible social benefit – especially in using the force of law to define something for which there is no actual benefit.  It is logical to me that if law is used to force something upon a society that there ought to be some actual benefit to that society as a result of such force of law.  I believe there are reasons to support traditional marriages and that traditional families can be shown to be economically beneficial as well as the best means to provide a next generation for a sustainable society.  In fact I believe that traditional marriage is so important to a stable society that I am concerned, especially concerned with selfish or self-serving efforts to change the parameters of marriage that do not result in any actual benefit for society.

 

I am interested, Lakumi, if as an advocate of homosexual marriage if you can provide even one unique benefit for society that homosexual marriage provides.

 

I think, and I could be wrong as I am only playing devil's advocate here, that one might answer that the general removal of bigotry is beneficial for society.  Of course, depending on where one falls in perception, that's either valid or a load of baloney.

[prisonchaplain]

I am skeptical that they really believe this. Seems more like a tactic to win debate and force agenda.

 

"Genocidal" may be too strong.  However, their litany of alleged crimes against them is lengthy.  The article I read lamented that government leaders regularly compare them (LBGT) with pedophiles.  That same writer said he fears that even a meaningless glance he might make could be misconstrued, leading to an angry--possibly violent--encounter. Additionaly, they are quick to tie the rhetoric of some ministers with acts of violence and murder committed against them.  Bottom-line:  traditional marriage advocates are like the KKK to them.  We are in the wrong and must be re-educated. 

 

My concern then--what is the agenda now?

[Finrock]

Good Afternoon The Folk Prophet. I hope you've been well! :)

 

I think, and I could be wrong as I am only playing devil's advocate here, that one might answer that the general removal of bigotry is beneficial for society.  Of course, depending on where one falls in perception, that's either valid or a load of baloney.

 

If that is indeed the argument, then it is circular and self-serving. It is dependent on the proposition that opposition to same-sex marriage is indeed bigotry. This proposition is a lie and it is this lie that has permeated our society. Some simply believe because they don't take the time to consider what it actually means while others, because of pride and selfish reasons, propogate the lie knowing full well that it is false.

 

-Finrock

[Lakumi]

Good Afternoon The Folk Prophet. I hope you've been well! :)

 

 

If that is indeed the argument, then it is circular and self-serving. It is dependent on the proposition that opposition to same-sex marriage is indeed bigotry. This proposition is a lie and it is this lie that has permeated our society. Some simply believe because they don't take the time to consider what it actually means while others, because of pride and selfish reasons, propogate the lie knowing full well that it is false.

 

-Finrock

I understand that not everyone who doesn't believe in it are mindless bigots, that would be a narrow viewpoint.

Just like I don't believe all Christians have the same doctrines. People are different and their ideas and views stem from different places.

I certainly don't believe just because someone doesn't agree with gay marriage means they are a hateful person.

 

And as for benefit? Well that's a rather cold way to look at humanity and love. It's less about that and more about why should some dictate who others are allowed to marry and love?

I donno what benefit there would be for, say me living in a polygamy, or polyamory, or polyandry relationship, but I'd do it regardless, because I'd be happy.

Why should I be restricted by what society tells me?

Why should I follow religious systems I don't believe in?

Much like I write and it has no worth to society.

I guess if I had to come up with one could say gays not having natural children gives more orphaned ones a chance at a happy home life?

Yes straight people adopt too, but I imagine less then gays do-I don't have numbers for that so don't quote me there.

[notquiteperfect]

Just came across this:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/gay-activists-aim-to-shut-down-oregon-health-food-store-over-owners-support/

Unbelievable!

[MarginOfError]

Thank you for posting the article Finrock.  

 

I'm seeing the LBGT agenda silencing more and more people.  We have gone from what has been viewed as "persecution" of LGBT to "persecution" of those who oppose Same Sex Marriage (SSM).  I just read an article earlier this week about the photographer who refused to photograph a SSM.  She lost in court and has to pay a huge fine.  It will put her out of business.  But that is what they want.  Silence all opposition even if it means destroying lives.

 

People will go along to get along.  That's human nature.  Sadly, its the silence that has gotten us here.

 

To be clear, the Supreme Court didn't take up the photographer's case because New Mexico has a law prohibiting discrimination on sexual orientation.  By declining to take up the case, the Supreme Court was effectively saying that, according to New Mexico law, a business that is open to the public cannot refuse service based on sexual orientation and that the current ruling had interpreted the law correctly.  There were no further questions to be asked.  

 

In states where discrimination on sexual orientation is not prohibited, the photographer would have had a case.  Realistically, the Supreme Court's decision here was a victory for states' rights.

 

Just came across this:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/gay-activists-aim-to-shut-down-oregon-health-food-store-over-owners-support/

Unbelievable!

 

I'm not sure why you think this is unbelievable.  Boycotts are a form of speech.  Patronage is a form of speech.  Citizens are allowed to boycott or patronize a business for any reason.  If you disagree with the boycotters' position, the proper thing to do is to exercise your voice and patronize the business.  

 

Anyone recall the great Chik-Fil-A battle?  Liberals went on a boycott of Chik-Fil-A and conservatives responded by patronizing the restaurants.  As you recall, that turned out pretty well for Chik-Fil-A.  

 

 

 

That being said, I think the pressure to have Eich removed was a little bit extreme.  I understand that employees may have been uneasy with the idea of someone that opposed same sex marriage being in a position to decide which benefits same sex couples get to enjoy, but by all objective measures, Eich appeared to have no issue with providing rights, benefits, and safe workplaces to homosexual employees and their partners.  I would like to think that his track record in the work place would speak more loudly than his political affiliations.  But, Mozilla's customer base seemed to feel differently, and so Mozilla made a tough choice.  I don't see anything wrong with that either.  If you disagree, I suggest you stop using Mozilla products and let them know the reason why.

[Lakumi]

Just came across this:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/gay-activists-aim-to-shut-down-oregon-health-food-store-over-owners-support/

Unbelievable!

doesn't mean every gay person wants to shut down any business or restaurant.

there's activists for every group and cause, doesn't mean every one is an activist

[Guest]

I understand that not everyone who doesn't believe in it are mindless bigots, that would be a narrow viewpoint.

Just like I don't believe all Christians have the same doctrines. People are different and their ideas and views stem from different places.

I certainly don't believe just because someone doesn't agree with gay marriage means they are a hateful person.

 

And as for benefit? Well that's a rather cold way to look at humanity and love. It's less about that and more about why should some dictate who others are allowed to marry and love?

I donno what benefit there would be for, say me living in a polygamy, or polyamory, or polyandry relationship, but I'd do it regardless, because I'd be happy.

Why should I be restricted by what society tells me?

Why should I follow religious systems I don't believe in?

Much like I write and it has no worth to society.

I guess if I had to come up with one could say gays not having natural children gives more orphaned ones a chance at a happy home life?

Yes straight people adopt too, but I imagine less then gays do-I don't have numbers for that so don't quote me there.

We've discussed this several times in this site... The reason why marriage is restricted by law is because the law defines the foundation of society. The same reason why they don't allow brother to marry his sister is present in gay marriage. The foundation of society is based on the theory that marriage is the umbrella by which children grow to achieve their potential. Genetics has shown that offspring of closely related people may be compromised... Now, of course, it is easy to say, but how about if we are sterile? The law does not provide that exemption because it simply sets the standard. Now, majority of society (especially Catholics and LDS) believe that children raised by same-gender parents are compromised. Hence, their stance against gay marriage.

Now, you might say... Well, there are lots of compromised children in divorced households or single parents, or even heterosexual marriages, etc. etc.... In these cases, society has deemed that the risk to children is worth the benefit. Decades later, we see the bad impact this has to society... But, it's already law. It will be very hard to take it away.

[Lakumi]

Well I disagree about that, but that is something we simply won't see eye to eye on. I accept your viewpoint and am not gonna picket at your place of worship or try and close down a bakery lol

[notquiteperfect]

I'm not sure why you think this is unbelievable.  Boycotts are a form of speech.  Patronage is a form of speech.  Citizens are allowed to boycott or patronize a business for any reason.  If you disagree with the boycotters' position, the proper thing to do is to exercise your voice and patronize the business.  

 

Yes, boycotts/patronizing businesses is a form of speech.  I just see their tactics (boycott all the suppliers, too and keep a running list, etc) as bullying which I have a problem with.  They expect tolerance but don't show it in return which is quite hypocritical in my book!  So ya, I find it 'unbelievable' that anyone would find this level of behavior acceptable.

[The Folk Prophet]

Yes, boycotts/patronizing businesses is a form of speech.  I just see their tactics (boycott all the suppliers, too and keep a running list, etc) as bullying which I have a problem with.  They expect tolerance but don't show it in return which is quite hypocritical in my book!  So ya, I find it 'unbelievable' that anyone would find this level of behavior acceptable.

 

I agree with you. The fact that boycotting is a form of speech does not have any relation to whether it's bullying. Most forms of bullying are forms of speech. Name calling, threats, gossip.... All forms of speech. Free speech and acceptable speech are not one and the same.

[Quin]

I am interested, Lakumi, if as an advocate of homosexual marriage if you can provide even one unique benefit for society that homosexual marriage provides.

Not Lakumi, here, but the benefits for society?

The exact same benefits of heterosexual marriage.

Unique benefits? As in over and beyond the benefits given to society via heterosexual marriage?

Only one I can think of : No unwanted pregnancies.

Homosexual couples HAVE to make the conscious & reasoned decision to become parents.

Q

[The Folk Prophet]

The exact same benefits of heterosexual marriage.

 

The question implies a benefit given to society at large, not to the couple. I think this answer is insufficient to that end.

 

Only one I can think of : No unwanted pregnancies.

 

Abstinence provides the same solution. Also, as part of a "hetero" couple who has been unable to have children and may well need to adopt, I have difficulty seeing unwanted pregnancies as an inherently bad thing to society (sociologically speaking, and not necessarily morally speaking) particularly with the growing levels of infertility. Finding a baby to adopt is hard. It puts people like myself into a strange conundrum. Morally I am absolutely against pregnancy out of wedlock. But I'm also hoping for more babies available for adoption. It's a difficult thing to reconcile.

[notquiteperfect]

Only one I can think of: No unwanted pregnancies.

 

Abstinence provides the same solution. Also, as part of a "hetero" couple who has been unable to have children and may well need to adopt, I have difficulty seeing unwanted pregnancies as an inherently bad thing to society (sociologically speaking, and not necessarily morally speaking) particularly with the growing levels of infertility. Finding a baby to adopt is hard. It puts people like myself into a strange conundrum. Morally I am absolutely against pregnancy out of wedlock. But I'm also hoping for more babies available for adoption. It's a difficult thing to reconcile.

A couple things - usually when people become pregnant unintentionally, they still keep the baby even if they can't afford to or will be abusive, etc.  So I don't see more 'unwanted pregnancies' as a solution to rising levels of infertility unless people are taught that adoption in these cases is better for everyone all around.  Also, I believe children have the right to be wanted so I don't see 'unwanted pregnancies' as necessarily a good thing for that reason as well.

[The Folk Prophet]

A couple things - usually when people become pregnant unintentionally, they still keep the baby even if they can't afford to or will be abusive, etc.  So I don't see more 'unwanted pregnancies' as a solution to rising levels of infertility unless people are taught that adoption in these cases is better for everyone all around.  Also, I believe children have the right to be wanted so I don't see 'unwanted pregnancies' as necessarily a good thing for that reason as well.

 

Of course some adoptive parents can't afford children (loss of job, etc.) and turn abusive, though I expect you're perhaps talking about a whole other level of poverty.

 

In a perfect world there would be no unwanted pregnancies, of course. There's be no infertility either. :)

[notquiteperfect]

Perhaps I wasn't clear.  I was talking about those who become pregnant and keep the baby instead of placing it for adoption even if circumstances aren't ideal.

And ya - a perfect world sure would be nice! :)