I was going to save this title for another time, but what I have to say today is a good start and plays right into the stark difference between the leftist stance in which feelings and intentions seem to play the greatest role in thinking and the conservative stance where results and reality play the greatest role in thinking. I think reasonable people can disagree on certain things regarding the views and stances of the right and the left, but one thing that I have found that is almost always true, those who are on the right admit they are on the right, those who are on the left very seldom willingly admit they are on the left.
Let me preface the coming topic by saying that I am in no way going to debate anyone on theology, nor attempt to influence anyone’s theology with my stance as it is not my calling. I am simply going to state my opinion and attempt make my case on the recent events regarding the democrats insistence on making gay marriage a federal issue in the coming presidential campaign.
Most of us have heard that old cliché, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”. Many of you who know me personally, have ever engaged me in a conversation or read any of my writings in the past know that I find leftism/liberalism a terrible and imminent threat to our freedoms as individual citizens and our country as a whole. This is not because I think that the vast majority of liberals are bad people,(although most liberal politicians make me question that) I just find them to be misguided by their feelings and emotions, and in their attempts to accomplish their ideals with good intentions, they do a terrible disservice to society and those they are trying to help the most. Unfortunately, it is almost unheard of, and certainly has not been my experience, to find anyone on the left that gives those of us on the right any type of respect. If we disagree with their ideology, we are considered racist, bigoted, homophobic, greedy, woman-haters, child-haters, old folks-killers , etc., etc… That said, no matter how I make my case, some will call me hateful and bigoted for writing this and that is their problem, not mine because political correctness is a disease based upon lies, not compassion, so here we go…
So President Obama, in what is being lauded as a “courageous” move, came out on Tuesday in a complete flip-flop (referred to as evolving by the left when done by a leftist) and endorsed gay marriage. In the president’s defense, he did say “it is my view” and “in my opinion” so I can not be certain that this will translate into an attempt on his part to draft federal legislation, but as the most radically leftist president in American history, I can only imagine.
This is where I want to discuss the government’s role in social issues such as marriage and specifically gay marriage. Let me start by presenting a number of arguments brought by the activists in the LGBT community and their supporters in favor of gay marriage… 1) What place is it for anyone to say who I can love? 2) I should have the right to marry the way straits have the right to marriage 3) Love is love, whether it be between man & woman, man & man, woman & woman and gays should be afforded the same rights as straights 4) How does a man being married to a man hurt anyone? It is nobodies business but ours and we’re not hurting anyone…
My first question is, who originally defined “marriage”? No matter what your theology, I think all reasonable people can agree that word marriage and certainly the concept of marriage was defined long before the establishment of any modern governmental system, and it has NEVER included parties of the same-sex. Over the course of human history, the institution of marriage has included the practice of polygamy and even that of incest, (both of which have been abolished in most civil societies) but never has any civil society been willing to re-define marriage as that between parties of the same-sex… The fact is, the institution of marriage has been, since the beginning of mankind, defined by the society as a whole, and the FACT that in every state (32 to date) that re-defining marriage has been put to a popular vote within a state, it has overwhelmingly been rejected… No matter what your feelings may be on the issue, the populous of the US overwhelmingly support the idea that THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE, should be between a man and a woman.
Next question, what is the role, and what role should the government play in marriage? The government has traditionally supported the institution of marriage with tax breaks and benefits, but have you ever wondered why? Every society, that is any thriving and successful society has an inherent interest in procreation, and not simply procreation, but the introduction and additional of successful future generations. No matter what your feelings may be, any reasonable person understands that you must first have a MALE & FEMALE to produce another human being. I think all reasonable people can agree that this is not where the process of producing a successful member of society ends. The fact is, a child born to a married mother & father, that graduates high school, and gets married prior to having children of their own, is approximately 40% less likely to wind up in poverty or on government assistance. That said, and understanding that heterosexual marriages, more often than not, result in children, you must ask yourself, does it make sense, and does government have an inherent interest in the sponsorship of heterosexual marriage??
I know, I know what you are thinking… but what about couples who do not have kids and what about those same-sex couples that want to have kids??? This could be debated til the cows come home and there may be reasonable arguments on both sides, but I will say this… First, there is NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO MARRIAGE, hetero or homosexual, so the premise that homosexuals are being deprived of a RIGHT is simply false. If marriage were a right, it would not require the participation of another party whether hetero or homosexual. This is why I explained the idea of government sponsorship vs a right. Second, you may say that homosexual couples if married could be every bit as effective as parents as heterosexual couples, and to that I think reasonable people may be able to disagree. But, there is no historical precedence in human history of the multigenerational effects of those being raised by homosexual couples or the multigenerational effects on a society that widely accepts the “marriage” of homosexuals, so the idea that a government would sponsor such an institution is simply irresponsible.
If we are simply going to define “marriage” as a bond between people who love each other, why is it then that we as a society can say brothers can not marry brothers, sisters can not marry sisters, fathers can not marry daughters, sons can not marry mothers, men can not marry multiple women and women can not marry multiple men?? These practices have been abolished throughout the history of civil societies because it is understood that it is detrimental to society for multiple reasons. Society determines the definition of marriage, not government, and to use government as an instrument of force to impose a new definition would be catastrophic on the family structure and it will be an incredible detriment on society as a whole.
I am fully aware that this opinion piece will not be popular with all readers, and I am certain that those on the left will label me as a bigot, but so be it. As a logical person, I understand that those who fight for this issue through emotion, feelings and good intentions will completely ignore my logical approach and see me as a hateful bigot but they could not be further from the truth. As a conservative and an overall good person, I must separate my feelings and emotions from an issue in order to accept the reality of the results of other people’s’ “good intentions”. This, is where the greatest separation is between a conservative like me and the vast majority of leftists…
Thank you for reading Wilksopinion…
2 thoughts on “Feelings/Intentions/Results/Reality”
As a Vietnam Veteran who worked for
General Creighton Abrams, Commanding Gen. of MACV&USARV in
Vietnam in 1969, he replaced Gen. Westmoreland. I received a full United States Military Scholarship to SMU in Dallas, TX. where I graduated with a Graduate Degree in 1972. I had an undergraduate degree from Centre College in Danville, Ky. where I graduated in 1966. I am now retired and
live with my wife, Barbara, who is a retired attorney from Riverside, Ca.
( Republican) and I as a Retired College
Professor reared by a Marine in WWll
who started the Vocational Schools in
1955 in Hazard, Ky. His Father built, my
Grandfather was an Italian Stone Mason who help build the railroads across the USA but died before I was born. I am a Democrat because my dad, a working class man and Marine during WWII was a Democrat. As the
Vice Commander of the VFW Post 1410
in Corbin, Ky. 40701 and as a Capitalist
who believes that the working class person built this country and will build it again. We are Capitalist, better product,
better service, lesser price because it must be more efficient and sustainable.
Please join me, John Michael Calitri and
Barbara Calitri, Corbin, Ky.40701 to ride
Capitalism to Victory in 2016.
In my opinion, the biggest problem with society right now, is giving in to bully behavior. I do not understand why we do. This makes me question if the ignorant really do outweigh the intelligent. People scream “rights” constantly, when in fact, they don’t know what a “right” even is. No “right” infringes on, or takes from, anyone else. Not long ago, a bakery owner refused to bake a wedding cake for a same sex couple’s wedding. He was sued, and lost. I question everyone involved – the courts, jury, lawyers, etc. who literally punished a man for standing up to his moral principles. Forcing someone to go against their beliefs to satisfy someone’s selfish demands, and call this a “right,” is WRONG! How can anyone actually believe THEY deserve the opportunity to do that? Why do people endorse and support self righteous bullies? On one hand, you hear people condemn bullies, on the other hand, they not only are blind to what a bully is, they stand behind them!! I have always refused to address a black as “African American” – because they are NOT. I have friends who ARE Africans who became Americans, and they are NOT one in the same as blacks. Now, the bully has come back with “Black Lives Matter” – have you noticed it has yet to be asked why they are now blacks again?