For all the folks who look at this issue in a rational and reasonable manner and argue the merits, get used to the fact, those with the opposing view will not be doing that. Some credible points are made in this commentary, and personally, I consider them well worth considering.
.............................................................
June 13, 2012 by David L. Goetsch
When liberals cannot debate an issue on its merits, they quickly resort to name calling. Disagree with President Obama on policy and you will be called a racist. Disagree with proponents of same-sex marriage (SSM) and you will be called a bigot. Unfortunately, when debating important political and cultural issues, the old maxim about “sticks and stones” does not apply. Name calling as a debating tactic, though disingenuous, does offer liberals two important benefits: 1) It covers up the fact that their argument has no merit, and 2) It turns the tables on conservatives, forcing them to defend themselves against the vile names they are being called. Because SSM is so difficult to justify on the basis of merit, its proponents have stopped debating and now simply resort to name calling. Currently, their epithet of choice for opponents of SSM is bigot. Calling someone who opposes SSM a bigot is the same as saying there can be no rationale, legitimate reason for opposing the concept. Hence, the issue is non-negotiable and there can be no debate—precisely what SSM proponents want. But calling someone a bigot does not make them one. The Oxford American Dictionary defines a bigot as: “…a person with strong and prejudiced views who will not listen to the opinions of others.” This definition is ironic because it is the proponents of SSM who refuse to listen and, instead, resort to name calling as a way to cut off debate rather than engage in reasonable discussion and attempt to refute the views of opponents. There are numerous logical, sound, non-bigoted reasons for opposing SSM. Here are just a few of them: • Proponents of SSM attempt, for obvious reasons, to define marriage on the basis of such nebulous concepts as love and devotion. If marriage is defined in this manner, an individual should be allowed to marry anything as long as he loves it and is devoted to it. Follow this reasoning to its logical conclusion. If love and devotion define marriage, one could marry a pet or one of his own children. Before dismissing this contention as ridiculous, consider this. There was a time when the concept of SSM would have been considered just as ridiculous. • Homosexuals already have all of the rights that non-homosexuals enjoy including hospital visitation, naming non-relatives as heirs in their wills, co-habitation, etc. Proponents of SSM do not want equal rights and privileges—they want special rights and extra privileges. • Proponents of SSM claim that it is a civil right. It is not. Sexual preference is hardly comparable to race. The people who braved injury and death during the civil rights struggles of the 1960s were seeking the right to vote, eat in restaurants, drink out of water fountains, send their children to the schools of their choice, and other basic rights guaranteed in the Constitution. They were not marching to be allowed to engage in SSM. • Proponents of SSM refuse to acknowledge that they already have the same rights to marriage as anyone else. They can marry another individual of the opposite sex. SSM is an unsettled issue that has many fair-minded opponents. As such it should be open to debate, discussion, and argument. Calling opponents of the concept bigots is an unworthy tactic to cut off debate and render SSM non-negotiable. (This article is based on material from by Summit Ministries).
Comment by amanda choate on June 14, 2012 at 7:18pm
You need to be a member of First Coast Tea Party to add comments!
Join First Coast Tea Party