Sean Collins is a writer based in New York. He sub-titles his article "A New York Progressive Braves the Opprobrium of His Peers by Questioning Same-Sex Marriage":
The growing clamor in favor of gay marriage has led me to recognize that it is important to speak out and be counted – against the gay-marriage campaign. This is not because I am a Christian or anti-gay, but because…
1) The gay-marriage campaign is elitist and believes its opponents are ‘bigots’
2) Same-sex marriage is not a civil right
3) Traditional marriage and the family are worth defending from state intrusion
4) The question of gay marriage has yet to be fully decided
...What remains to be seen is whether the politicization of gay marriage will lead to a strong reaction against it. The meaning of marriage, and the question of whether it should be changed to include gays and lesbians, should be a matter for public debate. For that reason, it is worth calling for state ballots: this is a social issue that should be decided democratically, not in courtrooms.
Today there is great moral pressure to fall in line behind the introduction of same-sex marriage. This is not due to the power of a relatively small number of gay activists; it is because the entire cultural elite – Democrats and increasingly Republicans – have thrown their collective weight behind gay marriage. In doing so, they are trying to assert their moral superiority by distinguishing themselves from so-called ‘bigots’.
In this environment, those who disagree with, or have questions about, gay marriage will feel tremendous pressure to start conforming. Opposing gay marriage has become a view that ‘dare not speak its name’. Following Obama, expect more public figures to be called upon to recant and say ‘I now believe’.
Well, count me out. I will not join the cultural elite’s bandwagon, a bandwagon that runs on self-flattery and the demonization of ‘backward’ voters. Critics of the same-sex marriage campaign are here, and we’re not all bible-thumping Christians – get used to it.
Read his entire column here.
28 Comments
Wow! Bang! Zing!
The challenge is getting those in favor of destroying our traditions to evolve when the very nature of their depravity does not allow for evolution.
I would like to point out that the political and secular reasons for opposing marriage corruption are stronger than the religious ones.
Glad to see that there is one progressive who gets it. Perhaps this person is open minded and is more moderate in his views so he is reasonable.
Any reason is stronger than a religious reason.
Humans are adaptable creatures, and their behavior is shaped by combination of all forces in society. Probably all of us were born with the potential to become bisexual or gay, but social norms were developed for heterosexuality to create a more harmonious society. As same-sex marriage is legitimized, it will occur more frequently, and there will be fewer traditional families, fewer and fewer young men with connections to women and children, and more women creating insular groups that promote hostility toward men. The social glue that holds us all together will dissolve and we will find ourselves in a hostile and chaotic world.
Yet we find millions of Catholics for SSM.
This writer is not a progressive, no progressive would refer to LGBT people as homosexuals. In fact he comes sounding like Palin too often in this article.
Too often for you at least, Pete
Anyway, nice to see that the media brainwashing campaign is already starting to initiate its inevitable backlash, even among progressives.
This guy is no progressive, whatever he may call himself. Nor is anyone else at that pissant little site.
A non progressive progressive.
Perfect.
this guy better watch his back he'll be getting death threats from the LGBTIQI gang
He is a self identified progressive which means he was born that way. You would think those that self identify as "Gay" would be more simpathetic to this gentlemens plight.
Do you aqctully believe anyone would actully choose to be a progressive; pe shaw.
Heh heh heh.
Nice, Randy
Yes! This progressive gets it. He knows what is at stake when the gov't redefines marriage:
"For example, in Canada, where gay marriage became legal in 2005, in some official documentation terms like ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ have been replaced with ‘Spouse’ or ‘Parent 1’ and ‘Parent 2’, thus exchanging terms with rich moral obligations for bureaucratic-sounding words that the state can define to suit its own purpose. Changing the definition of marriage will invite greater state interference in our private lives."
When marriage is understood as a social institution with a biological foundation, the role of the state is to recognize- not assign- parental status. Adoption being the exception and only as a remedy for unfortunate circumstances.
When marriage is redefined to be a gender neutral institution, the biological foundation doesn't apply. For every child that is present in a same sex marriage, the state must assign parental status. What used to be the exception, now becomes the rule.. All of us will be forced to live under the impoverished version of parenthood required by ssm, as there cannot be different laws governing opposite sex/ same sex marriages. When Canada adopted ssm, all references to natural/biological parenthood were removed from family law, only legal parenthood remains.
This is a major shift in power between the citizen and the state.
Good one, Randy!
@J.M. - The very chaotic world that you mention is the pre-civilized world, where no doubt guys were sticking their anatomy in the wrong and right places, women were becoming pregnant and starving, and diseases were being spread like wildfire, particularly among men (because the women figured out that the men sticking their things in them gave them more starving children (and no government welfare to raise them, btw).
So, so-called SS"M" is a step backward away from civilization, where all behaviors are tolerated, where more children end up in poverty because the moms don't know who the dads are, and disease is spread across the homosexuals and into the heterosexual community by those who like to stick their things in to both the wrong and the right places.
Welcome back to the Stone Age, except this time the taxpayers have to pay for it all.
@pete, newsflash-'LGBTpeople' are 'homosexuals'
==...no progressive would refer to LGBT people as homosexuals.==
Because that would be pointing precisely to the problem with homosexuality. Pro-homo Libs wanna avoid any reference to the filth of homosexuality at all cost.
==Any reason is stronger than a religious reason.==
Jesus railed against "religion."
"Religion" is defined as "binding." The Law binds.
One does the Righteous thing by loving God through Christ. One who loves God through Christ doesn't have to be told to do, or not to do; he knows.
"It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins" Benjamin Franklin
Homosexuality and secularism are religions of willful ignorance.
@davide, those who call themselves ex-gay are fooling themselves.
Randy, glad you can amuse Ashley. Just wait till she finds out you are a racist. Oh damn.
@pete, I do not call myself an 'ex-gay' but rehabilitated. Of course I didn't have the daddy issues that plagues most 'gay' men so my transformation to greener pastures was relitively simple nor was I ever a peter-puffer nor was I ever man-handled. The ball and chain of homosexuality is forever gone. Its weird but now that I have left that filth-gay men want me now more than ever, must be my heterosexual masculinity.
Pete,
Defamation is not a tactic you should be embracing; it happens to be a crime.
Great post, Davide. It's good to be masculine; and I've found that not only are gay men more attracted to me, but straight guys who have adopted a more feminine persona seem almost envious of me because I don't feel compelled to neuter my behavior.
I get a kick out of it my wife rolls my eyes at me or feels compelled to scold me for my behavior; I know then that I am distinguishing myself from our rather homogeneous, feminine-like, circle of friends.
I'm with you on the rehabilitated designation. I just took a wrong path at some point and got back on track. No daddy issues, just bad environmental influences.
@OvercameSSA
"masculinity" has nothing to do with being straight or being gay. Besides the picture of my boyfriend on my desk - no one would take me for being gay. But unlike you - I don't hide behind "masculinity" to make up for my faults.
at overcame most gay men do have a unhealthy obsession with straight dudes-perfect example Dan Savage he can't stop talking about us.
Yeah, tim, I'm sure no one would take you for being gay. I honestly can't think of any men whom I've known who adopted a gay identity did not also adopt the feminine affect. I think you're kidding yourself.