If you think it’s simply about Gay Marriage…

… then understand that you’re not thinking critically.  You’re emoting.  And there’s a deleterious effect on society the more people emote like you’re emoting:

Some-people-are-gayToleration is not enough. Neutrality is not enough.

If I say, “Your sins are less than my own, I will not judge you, go your way in peace.” That is not enough. Ask the personal columns who wanted not to carry gay ads, or the photographers who did not want to photograph gay weddings, or the clerk who wished someone else to issue the gay marriage license, and now ask the Catholic foster home charity who wished not to assist gay couples. We have to help them do something we think is immoral, and if we balk, we are reviled or punished at law. If I say, “I shall not stop you, but I shall not help you.” they answer, “Oh, yes you WILL!”

And this is why I can no longer count myself among the Libertarians, fine men that they are. Their philosophy of mutual toleration and total governmental neutrality on all matters of faith and morals overlooks a fundamental non-negotiable reality: there is no middle ground between good and evil, because the evil, knowing itself evil and loathing itself, must destroy the good to maintain its self esteem, or to sate its malice.

The Left rarely talks about what is really as issue here. Perhaps they are hiding their motive or perhaps they simply are crippled by not having the moral vocabulary to express the thought.

What is at issue is honor. Nothing more, nothing less.

It is not about law. It is not about justice, or rights, or civil rights, or atmospheres of hostility or social acceptance. Those are either euphemisms for honor or side effects. Because honor is imponderable, and because, unlike an innate legal right, honor must be earned by honorable conduct, the Left do not ever call it by its right name.

Now, you may ask, why should I, or any man, pay honors to a behavior which logic finds either unnecessary and experience proves deleterious for any greater good? Why would anyone demand that I applaud a behavior that shatters homes and ruins lives and is an abomination in the sight of all normal men of every continent and era? Should not we honor acts of fortitude, prudence, temperance, and justice, rather than unseemly and grotesque self indulgence in a sexual appetite which is misaligned?

Why can I not ignore them, and they ignore me? Why can we not, as the Libertarian solution would have it, allow us to agree to disagree, and have the law neither forbid our side from forming private groups as we see fit, and exclude whom we see fit, and them likewise?

The Libertarian solution does not take into account that there is no neutral ground.

Like passing a law making pi equal to thee, merely by having the law degree that abnormality is normal does not change the psychology of abnormality. At some level, they know they are unhealthy and perverted, and they resent those who are not.

To soothe the uneasiness of this resentment, they require first toleration, and then tokenism, and then mainstreaming, then admiration, and then adoration, and then condemnation of those they resent, and after what they can do to shame, diminish, deter, punish, wound and obliterate those they resent, they do.

The cost in human suffering is not reckoned. They don’t care what orphans go unplaced.

There is no middle ground, and no compromise with and no stopping place for their demands, because their demands are not based in reality.

This morning I published a related piece detailing the lengths to which gays will go to further their agenda.  John Wright here is touching on why and the whole thing needs to be read so that you can understand the context.

So read it all.  Pass it on.

Let’s do what we can to limit the freakin’ emoting.

H/T once again to Mark Shea who one minute is completely ticking me off and the next is making me say aloud, “Yea… right on…”.

HuffPost Writer vs. Conservative Christians
Good Riddance
  • Pingback: Brutally Honest()

  • Anonymous

    That is a very good piece. So true and so in line with my stance. It is the ever present “tolerance only works one way” argument or like we said in the old days, “my way or the highway”. But how can I personally sacrifice my beliefs for people I don’t even know? If I think something is a sin, why would I assist the sinner in continuing the sin? It doesn’t make sense and it really is against all my spiritual beliefs. Thanks for sharing this Rick. ww

  • Mario Delgado

    Originally posted at ‘What’s in it for U.S.?: The Limited Government Case against Gay Marriage’

    While many cite cultural and religious reasons to oppose gay marriage, one doesn’t need to resort to pathos and ethos-based arguments when formulating our public policy on marriage in general. A simple limited government philosophy offers the appropriate perspective.

    The human condition is analog not digital. As in the non-human animal world, human sexuality is found along a spectrum of relationships. From a biological perspective and without scientific intervention, procreation in humans requires an individual male and an individual female.

    Before considering the question of gay marriage, a more fundamental question should be considered: Why marriage at all? In the United States, marriage is a tri-party legal agreement. The first two parties, husband and wife, are obvious. The third party is the state/community that acknowledges a marriage. Male and female couples petition the state –and more generally, their community– to recognize their marriage. If it was just a simple relationship amongst consenting adults, the community would have no need –and more importantly no business– acknowledging the relationship.

    However, marriage is a relationship that imposes responsibilities on the community and that’s why the state is involved in its recognition and definition; as in detailing that only two (not more) individuals of the opposite sex will be recognized in a marriage. Married couples get legal tax and inheritance status. Male-female couples asking the state to recognize their marriage are also asking the state to address the care of their biological children if the couples are incapable of doing so.

    What does the community get in return for consideration of this ‘special’ status? It is rejuvenated –by the only relationship that can procreate: a male-female relationship– and benefits from responsibly raised children in a marriage. Because of the corrosive effects to the community of infidelity, the community acknowledges only monogamous marriages. This shared responsibility amongst all the parties (husband, wife, community) is the limited government rationale for marriage as a legal construct.

    Gay couples asking the community to recognize their relationships have a responsibility to address the question: ‘In return for the community’s recognition, what will you do for the state that justifies more government?’. They may counter that some gay couples have children and that their care benefits the community. But these children are not, and can not be, the natural offspring of a gay marriage. They are the shared responsibility of the biological parents and the state. The existing legal constructs are sufficient to address the children’s and community’s interests.

    The state/community will be a party to any marriage and therefore has every right to say which marriages it will recognize. The gay couples seeking recognition must make their case for community involvement in their relationship when the sine qua non condition of biological procreation does not exist and there are sufficient laws to deal with any children in a gay relationship. Until the argument for an expansion of government is made, the basic principle of limited government, the minimal amount of laws our society needs to function, should prevail.

  • Anonymous

    You really want to check the few facts that you used in this piece.  An abomination in the sight of normal men of every continent and era?  Shatters homes?  Ruins lives?  Unhealthy?  Orphans going unplaced?

    You have compared these last four to the same problems as associated with heterosexual behavior?

    • jim_m


      Sorry, but in addition to all the STD’s that heterosexual sex has, homosexual intercourse adds a host of enteric pathogens. Virtually every bacteria that is normal in the gut is an infectious agent in the GU tract.

      Back in the mid eighties there was a book published titled “The Coming Plague”. It took a detailed look at pathogens like ebola, marburg, dengue fever, HIV and others.  In the chapter on HIV the author interviews a gay activist and the activist proudly lists off all the STD’s he’s had.  The first couple were to be expected for someone who counts his lifetime sexual partners in the hundreds if not thousands.  Then he started listing enteric pathogens that I had learned about in school.  Bugs that only live in your colon, gay men pass around as STD’s

      It should also be noted that with the acceptance of homosexuality the notion of what constitutes promiscuity in the medical field changed.  Setting aside prostitutes, most people would have previously been considered promiscuous if their annual number of parnters reached into the double digits.  But with homosexual men in the 80’s it became common to have them claim annual partners in the high 100’s.  This is what created the opportunity for HIV to reach such a high level of prevalence in the gay community.

      It’s an unhealthy behavior and lifestyle.  The data backs it up.  It is not simply some religious or moral judgment.

      • Anonymous

        Oh dear.  What about the heterosexuals that engage in “exchange of enteropathogens?”  They are damned to Hell and shouldn’t have kids either?  Another 15% or more of the population to be shunned?  Heck, you realize the mouth is 100 times as dirty as the anus, and harbors/spreads more deadly or just annoying infections daily than the corn hole.  So if you are SOOOOO turned off by the spread of enterpathogens, maybe you should be even more grossed out by kissing spreading, strep, cold sores, mono, whooping cough, diptheria, flu, Legionnaire’s disease, pneumococcal pneumonia, haemophilus, RSV, and mycoplasma.  Then there’s the totally unnecessary for procreation oral genital sex.  Oh the horror!

        Promiscuity, be it homosexual or heterosexual, spreads disease.  Monogamous relationships, be they homosexual or heterosexual, limit disease spread.  There is a subset of both hetero and homosexual humans who are randy and promiscuous. There is also a subset who are not.  I am all for encouraging the latter.  Its good spiritually and medically.

        The rest of the moralizing not so much.

      • Anonymous

        Thanks for the information.  Do you consider homosexual sex to be unhealthy independent of the anal sex and promiscuity?


    • jim_m

      Orphans going unplaced

      With Catholic Charities in Illinois being barred from working with the state to place orphans because they refuse to place them to same sex couples, I’d say the answer is yes. Was it necessary to stop an agency from placing 2500 children annually because a handful of gay couples would be forced to use a different agency?  Of course not. For the Gay community it was more important to cram their lifestyle down everyone else’s throats.  No one can credibly claim that Catholic Charities had such a monopoly on adoptions that same sex couples could not adopt. 

      But since Catholic Charities represented 6 of the ~30 adoption agencies in the state the gay community shut down 20% of the adoption agencies over their political agenda alone.

      • Anonymous

        Interesting interpretation!  Are you sure that it was the gay community that shut down adoption agencies?  Is there any possibility that they were told by the state that they would not be allowed to discriminate if they continued to operate?


  • Anonymous

    A disgusting display of public bigotry.


  • jb

    So, to sum up:

    1. Some people shouldn’t be able to marry someone they love, because sometimes people lie and cheat and sometimes they practice unsafe sex.

    2. But other people *should of course* be able to marry someone they love, even though they also sometimes lie and cheat and practice unsafe sex.

    3. And this is because the first group is “evil” and the second group is “good”, because the first group wants to have sex with people who have similar genitalia, and the second group wants to have sex with people who have different genitalia.

    4. And we know that this is true, because the Bible says so. In at most 3 o4 lines of text out of several thousand, none of which is the actual word of Jesus. But, alternately, working on Sunday or eating shellfish or a ham and cheese sandwich? No problem.

    5. And finally, disagreeing with any of this is not using logic, but is instead “emoting”.

    Does that really make sense to you? Honestly?

    • excellent post demonstrating just how “illogical” this piece really is.

  • Anonymous

    I only hope polygamists, those that believe incest is acceptable, and some I can’t think of right now, sue for the right to a legal marriage. Only then will the country see the nightmare this will cause.RLD

  • This piece demonstrates the great lie that conservatives want gubmint out of your lives. They very much want the gubmint in your life as long as the gubmint is telling people conservatives don’t like what to do.

    So to add to what JB said:  Regulating a corporation from dumping toxic waste in our water supply is tyranny. We know this because corporations are good and if a few babies die from lead poison it’s okay, because as an absolute good corporations deserve no governmental interfenrece. 

    However loving their partner is evil if you are gay  It’s evil because Rick thinks so and he has a 10000 year old  Jewish book that backs him up. This despite the earth actually being only 6000 years old, so obviously he is the person to ask about good and evil.

    So hats off to governmental interference. Conservatives sho do loves them some big gubmint. 

  • The piece is stupid and based on a false assumption: that the charity had a right to taxpayer funding. No charity has been ever closed down for discriminating against gay people but some have been told that if they want to take money from the pockets of gay people, without their consent, through taxation, then they can’t discriminate against the people who are forced to fund them. Perhaps if the Catholic Church didn’t have to pay out millions to compensate the children abused by priests and bishops it would be able to do charitable work without taking it from taxpayers.