Gay Orthodoxy v. Tradition and Religion

by Featured Guest on April 7, 2014

Dogma v. Individual Authority and Personal Choice: A Libertarian Compromise on the Issues

by John Savage

The conflict between Gay Orthodoxy, Tradition and Civil Rights as can be seen in the Eich/Mozilla Affair can be resolved with a conversion of the right of Gay Marriage to one of the right to Civil Unions, with all of the same rights and privileges contained therein.

On the surface of things this compromise seems to have the same desirability as the doctrine of “separate, but equal.” In the case of minority rights, “separate, but equal” leads to continued discrimination and a lack of social cohesion. But in the case of Gay Civil Unions, the reverse is true.

The insistence on the right to Gay Marriage has led to a breakdown in the cohesion of our society. Those who do not conform to the orthodoxy of Gay Political Dogma are the ones that are discriminated against and face the possibility of real political persecution and legal prosecution. This flies in the face of First Amendment Rights of the freedom of religion, the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press. This has led to a situation akin to a tyranny of a minority over the majority. This is a distinctly un-American development.

This situation is untenable and creates a divergent plurality rather than a convergent one and threatens to disrupt, if not destroy, the cohesion of American society and culture… or worse. This is not the course of “e pluribus unum.”

The compromise of Civil Unions is the optimal legal solution, though perhaps not the ideal one from any particular and rigid perspective. It gives gays the right to form civil unions and share all of the same rights and privileges as married heterosexual couples, but preserves the First Amendment Rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion, etc., for ALL.

It respects the civil rights of individuals even while we disagree with them. It allows for the possibility of agreeing to disagree and yet maintains social cohesion. It maintains individual liberty, the spirit of the U.S. Constitution and the concepts that inform Classical Liberalism. It defuses dogma and short-circuits the temptation to persecute others with whom we disagree. Additionally, it puts an end to legal prosecution of those who by tradition, religion and/or personal belief wish to define their union in a way that they choose, be that “marriage” or “civil union” by Justice of the Peace.

Further and perhaps more importantly, “civil unions” preserve the integrity of the individual. No longer does the individual have to make one set of claims publicly while maintaining another set of claims privately. The individual will be allowed to stay true to him- or her- self. A person will be allowed to keep a job or a business while maintaining this integrity even if it flies in the face of company policy or social convention. This leads to increased self-esteem, mental health, self-determination, the integrity of American society and its conception of individual liberty.

It is time we put an end to this civil war that we call activism for tolerance. One cannot demand respect and expect to gain it. Respect is a mutuality, it is something that is earned, not taken. We respect the right of others to determine for themselves how to see society and reality in general… and in turn they respect us. We cannot force ourselves upon one another.

This is an honorable compromise regarding this most divisive issue of our day and is in line with the Libertarian moment that seems to be increasing in magnitude and scope in our exceptional nation.

{ 12 comments… read them below or add one }

Justinian April 7, 2014 at 15:10

I must be missing something here.

They already have gay marriage and they and their allies are in the the political ascendency now.

Why, when they are in a position of power would they agree to the consolation prize of civil unions?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1
Anonymous Reader April 7, 2014 at 15:36

Welmer, this article appears to have been written several years ago, perhaps in the 1990′s, no idea why it is appearing today.

This situation is untenable and creates a divergent plurality rather than a convergent one and threatens to disrupt, if not destroy, the cohesion of American society and culture… or worse. This is not the course of “e pluribus unum.”

This person has clearly not been paying attention for the last generation. There won’t be any compromise, because the neo-Fascist left sees no reason to do so. There will be demands for all traditions, all religions, all belief systems to bend on the cause-of-the-month, or be broken and destroyed.

Any resemblance to the Bolshevikii of Russia, or the Robspierre wing of the French revolution, is not a coincidence.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 1
The Other Jim April 7, 2014 at 16:28

This article misses an important point to the point of naivety.

The Left, of which the LGBQT Fascists (& Feminism too) is a part of, can not compromise. Their ideology will not allow them to.

Homosexuals and their Useful Idiot supporters certainly don’t care about compromise. They don’t care about coexistence. They don’t care that you can hate the sin but love the sinner. They don’t care about Christ. They don’t care. Really. Their Marxist ideology prevents them from doing so. Why? Because the internal essence of the LGBQTXYZ ideology is Marxism-Cultural Marxism, but Marxism nonetheless. Only the terminology has changed. Instead of Proletariat vs. Bourgeousie & Capitalism you have LGBQT vs. Straight and Christian.

More than the change in terminology, the Hegelian dialectic at the core of Marxism and thus the LGBQT ideology, can NOT tolerate or accept the existence of an opposing ideology. Through the Hegelian Dialectic process of Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis, the conflict between two opposing ideas(or ideologies) must struggle against each other to determine which is true and which is false. In this case, either the ideology of LGBQT is true and that of heterosexual Christian society is false or the ideology of LGBQT is false and that of heterosexual Christian society is true.

So for the Marxists(Cultural, political, or economic; LGBQT, Feminist, or Post-Colonialist) it is either one or the other. There is no third choice for the Cultural Marxists. There is no choice for LGBQT. Ditto for Feminism.

Thus, for the LGBQT ideologues they must ideologically destroy their enemies or they will face ideological destruction. Destroy or be destroyed. That is the only choice for Marxists. This is why Marxists around the world are prone to commit mass genocides. From Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Che, and the rest Marxists have no choice but to destroy their opponents-physically and ideologically.

To paraphrase Kyle Reese; “Listen, and understand. That LGBQT/Feminist/Post-Colonial/Marxist terminator is out there. It can’t be bargained with. It can’t be reasoned with. It doesn’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are converted, enslaved, or dead.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 3
realist April 7, 2014 at 20:25

This is a voice of reason – just create legal partnerships (property rights, etc). The problem is that they insist on calling it “marriage” which it is not. Calling it “marriage” and treating it like traditional marriage is too much to ask, because neither gay nor lesbian couples can fulfill that social function. Unfortunately, the term “gay marriage” is already very deeply entrenched in the social vocabulary, while it in fact should be called “gay partnership”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2
QuidProQuo April 8, 2014 at 02:28

They’ve got all this forward momentum and narcissists aren’t known for their willingness to compromise. Too much ground has been ceded too quickly to start assuming that any of these people will respect a new line in the sand. If wordplay were enough to placate both sides, it would be the first time in history. Marriage is what they want – equal means equal right? You want to give them marriage without calling it marriage… sorry I don’t see the tradition in that at all. What’s going to stop schools treating these events like the Civil Rights period if all we end up doing is granting 99% of their demands?

It’s like “Invasion of the Culture Snatchers” out here.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
Uncle Elmer April 8, 2014 at 06:18

If you can’t beat em join em. I am working on a new consumer product idea targeting the gay-normative married demographic : anal douches. Right now am experimenting with combination of “Mountain Spring Waters” and “Lavender Fragrances”, maybe “Pine Scent” or “Potpouri”. Tearing a page from their playbook to gin up product controversy, will enlist the help of Saatchi and Saatchi to produce TV commercials featuring handsome, professional Black husband and his White husb-wife and their adorable, ever questioning cute offspring. Racists and homophobes alike will spew rage and hate on the internet only to drive product sales through the roof. If they don’t I will sockpuppet them and create a media firestorm about it.

The pros know how it works.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
Lurker April 8, 2014 at 06:52

I think the solution proposed above is very elegant and very pragmatic. But people are too idealistic and foolish to even consider it.

I just want to note this is whole gay, atheist versus Christian thing is cyclical in nature. Most of the time it seems that it’s ignorant or crazy people running this discussion with both being a little bit extreme for my taste. Never mind the fact that there are people who disagree with homosexuality but vote for ssm or homosexuals who are against ssm for various reasons. Another thing, I don’t really understand is this hard on for marriage everybody seen to have. Like marriage is this ultimate relationship, never mind that other relationships can be just fulfilling as marriage.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Aaron April 9, 2014 at 05:40

On a spiritual and moral basis I am opposed to gay marriages; I think the concept is an oxymoron. The term marriage may not be legally owned yet historically (with few exceptions) the concept in practice has and does apply to heterosexuals. On a Constitutional/Bill of Rights consideration legal basis I believe that a gay couple should have the right to some form of legal binding partnership.

IMO, I think all adult citizens wanting to marry or have a partnership should first be required to have a “civil union” ceremony along with a pre-nup which outlines and governs the terms of their legal partnership. Afterwards, if the couple chooses to go to an accepting religious institution that recognizes and supports their union and spiritual lifestyle then they can do their own second ceremony. I don’t think the second ceremony the religious one should have any official legal recognition outside their own group.

I’ve noticed some right-wing religious people (from diverse and various groups) not always recognizing other heterosexual couples marriages if from a religion they look down upon/ don’t recognize or even marriages from within their own religion if the ceremony and couple does not meet their standards.

Again, personally spiritually and morally I am opposed to gay marriages. Yet, America isn’t a theocracy and I don’t want to politically oppress other citizens denying them their own right to live their lives as they choose. I don’t want others telling me how to practice my faith and live my life. I am concerned that taking the step of re-defining the marriage process and calling for civil unions first etc might ultimately lead to even more moral decay in America with even more people embracing the belief that all morals are subjective and relative.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Anonymous Reader April 10, 2014 at 16:04

The other point that the author should bear in mind is this:
Civil unions were available and are available in some political subdivisions. It does not matter, the vanguard of the ever-expanding gay rights brigade still demands “marriage” and that “marriage” must be just as good as any breeder’s marriage. Or else. So there.

Thus the compromise in question does not work, can not work, and will not work, because there will always be some number of homosexuals who will reject it.

You can’t compromise with people who do not want to compromise.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
wedontcare April 10, 2014 at 22:29

Too late for compromise. “Civil unions” are the obvious solution to the insane conundrum of SSM; but it’s too late now. SSM will soon be the law of the land across the West. But I rather doubt it will gain much acceptance elsewhere. Rather, legalizing SSM has made the West the laughingstock of the world.

There will also be a reaction to the excessive use of political force involved in the ramming down of SSM down the throats of populations. Just as there are reactions against “multiculturalism” and “feminism.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
whome33 April 11, 2014 at 17:32

Well, from a spiritual basis, I still support same-sex marriage. You do not have to believe that marriage is only between a man and a woman to be a true Christian, Jew, or Muslim. There are plenty of affirming churches and synogauges, and even an affirming mosque or two (those are the extreme rarities but I believe they do exist).

Yale historian John Boswell has written mind-blowing scholarship regarding this issue.

But to the point of the thread: SSM is coming, for the better.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4
Tina April 15, 2014 at 19:59

Gays are being used by the globalists to destroy traditional marriage, to demoralize the population, and reduce childbearing.

They’re succeeding aren’t they?

I used to be live and let live; but no longer, the fags have declared war on the 99% of us who are normal. I declare war back.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: