Not a misstatement on any thing I can see, though it really goes beyond being granted legal marriages. As long as homosexuals are seen as inferior to heterosexuals, that’s a problem. Though, and I say this with tongue planted firmly in cheek, I feel a little stalked with as much as you have managed to know about me.
Homosexual behaviour is seen as inferior to heterosexual behaviour. Apart from the character weakness associated with giving in to disordered behaviour, homosexuals as people get a pretty good go in this day and age. However, by any definition, their behaviour disgusts most people, as it has down through recorded history, so from the perspective of what is normal sexuality, homosexual acts are not normal.
As for feeling a little stalked Seeker, one of the reasons you attract so much angst on these forums is because you have very openly thrown your lifestyle into the faces of others. Many feel as though you are trying to ram it down our throats. Why you come onto a Catholic forum and do that is beyond me, unless you think you can persuade others here of the wrongness of their beliefs, or to convince those here that the Catholic Church is an old fashioned, bigoted organisation. None of this will wash here Seeker, because you are trying to defend the indefensible.
Personally, I think you come here because deep down you are unhappy.
I suppose that’s true, to a certain extent. What I want is a truly libertarian society. One in which one is free to harm ones self to their hearts content, so long as whatever harm you wish to expose yourself to doesn’t cause undue risk to others. But there’s a tail to that coin, and that means one is also dependent on the fruits of their own labors. I have no problem with friends, family, whatever, choosing to help those who refuse to help themselves, nor do I have any issue with safety nets, to a degree. After all, I myself have taken advantage of Unemployment Insurance. But sucking at the public teat for year after year after year is over the top.
You confuse libertarian with libertine. A libertarian believes in smaller government and less government interference in an individuals life. It might surprise you to know that I have a very, very strong libertarian streak in me. I loathe the amount of governmental interference in our lives that we must endure in this day and age. However, to believe in Libertinism is something alse again. We describe someone who is a libertine as being “immoral”. Did it ever occur to you that “morals” are just guides to how people should behave in society? That without morals, society cannot function as a coherent whole? That as moral behaviour declines, there needs to be greater legislative direction as to how society must function? In other words, when morals lapse, people forget how to regulate themselves and so governments do it for them.
Which brings me to this -
But what I want is a society who does not attempt to protect it’s citizens from themselves.
But what you need is a society which is willing to protect you from others. Moral behaviour used to gaurantee you protection from others and transgressions against you were dealt with pretty harshly. As moral behaviour has declined, you then require more and more protection from the state. Have a look at the Ten Commandments. If everyone adhered to them you ouldn’t need half the government regulation which you must endure today.
Which in turn, leads me to this -
The only way to ‘preserve time-held values’ is to impose them on others. Times change. People change. Standards change. As they should. But preserving the past is only possible by forcing others to follow your morals.
In light of what I have already written, if you are truly a libertarian, you will realise that a strong moral code, freely adopted, is the only thing that would stand between you and anarchy in a society which has little governmental control over its citizens. In other words, with less adherence to a moral self control mechanism, there is a greater need for an authoritative government. If you have neither, you have anarchy.
I think everyone should support it, for it means equal rights and equal treatment for all. If the church wishes to preach to it’s members that they should not partake, that’s one thing, but the church wishes to insure that nobody can partake. Seems over the top to me.
As a libertarian, you should really re-examine your notions of equality and equal rights. For without greater governmental control, inequality is an enshrined aspect of human nature. You might then say, well, governments should make sure everyone has an equal opportunity. However, even with equal opportunities, you will never achieve equal outcomes without even more governmental interference. What’s more, equal opportunity is a whole lot different to making equal those things which will never be equal, unless you have government interferance once again that makes us think, or have to accept, that unequal things are equal. No matter how you paint it, unequal things will always be unequal.
You are absolutely correct that the legalization of gay marriage will not affect me in the future, as I am not gay, and don’t think I will become so. But I do not think allowing those who are is imposing upon you, or those who think like you do, for your lives will not change. I don’t know you, but it’s (hypothetically) possible that your next door neighbors are a homosexual couple. Your life is completely unaffected if they are allowed to wed, assuming the hypothetical gay couple next door exists.
Be careful what you wish for. Unequal things can never be equal without someone saying they are, or should be acccepted as so. How is it possible to have a properly functioning libertarian society when unequal things are forced to be considered as equal?
