New Article: The Anti-PC Case For Same Sex Marriage

Recommended Posts

I wrote this article in response to the Australian marriage law postal survey currently underway, and it has been published by an Australian think-tank. I think that voting in favor of permitting same sex marriage would actually be a blow to the PC narrative. My case is made here:

All thoughts appreciated!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi, In my view it's a pity that homosexuals (or many) connected the same sex marriage issue to Leftist "political correctness" agendas in the first place. Therefore, allowing public discourse on what is individual and private. To me there is no debate, if you consider: 1. Many gay couples have been living in a de facto marriage all along. 2. All would like the legal equity which state confers on married couples 3. All would like to have their marriages civilly ratified for the personal commitment, romantically emotional and social reasons. Like any couple. Who can say nay?

To throw this less than apocalyptic matter open to public majoritarianism and street campaigns, is distasteful, disingenuous and evasive of Governments, imo. (I made a remark a few years ago about the Irish referendum , imagining a Mrs. Mary O'Grady with her five kids, making her sanctimonious moral judgment). We generally have to put up with Statism anyhow, so let the State decide affirmatively.

Here and there I have to agree with a few Leftist policies... The Left can't ~always~ be wrong, and when they do fluke it, right for the wrong reasons - ha. Your link doesn't open for my computer, Andrew. The source isn't trusted, or something. I would like to see your argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

by david badash
October 11, 2017 12:35 PM

'Our Christian Heritage Will Be Cherished, Defended, Protected Like You've Never Seen Before' Trump Promised Conference Attendees in 2016

President Donald Trump on Friday will become the first sitting U.S. president to address the Family Research Council's annual right wing political and religious conference, the Values Voter Summit. FRC appears on the Southern Poverty Law Center's list of active anti-gay hate groups and its president, Tony Perkins, reportedly asked the Commander-in-Chief for the military transgender ban.

This is not Trump's first time at the VVS, according to a press release announcing Trump's upcoming appearance. He has attended and spoken before the far right wing extremist group's audience twice before. Last year, Trump promised VVS attendees if they elected him president, "Our Christian heritage will be cherished, defended, protected like you've never seen before." 

Vice President Mike Pence also addressed the Values Voters last year.

In recent weeks the president has escalated his attacks on the LGBT community, clearly as a gift to his religious right wing base. After rescinding Obama-era guidance protecting transgender children in February, Trump's Justice Dept. earlier this month revoked an Obama-era government policy that, in keeping with federal court and EEOC rulings, determined that transgender people are protected in the workplace under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The attorney general has now scrapped that policy.

The Values Voter Summit is a magnet for some of the most anti-LGBT activists in America. In addition to speakers from other anti-gay hate groups like Liberty Counsel and the American Family Association, the annual event attracts notables like Rowan County, Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis, who this year is in Romaniaattempting to stop same-sex marriage from becoming legal there.

Among this year's confirmed speakers are Michelle Bachmann, Steve Bannon, the benham Brothers, Sebastian Gorka (the former Trump aide linked to a neo-Nazi group), Fox News' Laura Ingraham, the NRA's Dana Loesch, and GOP Senate nominee Roy Moore. 

Also speaking this year is House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, whose life was saved by a D.C. police officer who is a lesbian

Earlier this month the Trump administration instituted a sweeping rollback of the Obama-era contraception mandate – which absolutely affects LGBT people – and instituted an extraordinary policy reversal prioritizing the rights of people of faith over the rights of LGBT people.

Just days ago Trump's Dept. of Health and Human Services scrapped a proposed rule that would have protected senior same-sex couples in nursing homes and other elder care facilities.

The Trump's Interior Dept. backed out of support for Wednesday's dedication of the Stonewall National Monument, the first honoring the LGBT community and LGBT history. They even refused to allow a previously scheduled speaker to attend, claiming a last-minute scheduling conflict.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, william.scherk said:



From what I know, the Sessions memo merely restates existing law. Maybe I'm thinking of another memo, but gay rights aren't the same thing as trans rights, and the idea that rescinding the contraception mandate is an attack on gay people is ridiculous. No one has a right to state-subsidized contraception. The mandate's rescinding impacts everyone equally, and condoms/dental dams are cheap. There are also principled libertarian arguments against the expansion of anti-discrimination laws.

As for speaking at a summit, politicians pander. This is what they do. They're whores. You can't expect them to speak in front of an interest group only because they agree with the entire ideology of that interest group... Paul Ryan spoke at an Objectivist conference once but he still hasn't aborted a fetus and smeared the resultant blood over a statue of the Virgin Mary yet, now has he? A representative of the NRA is speaking at this conference too, but the NRA defends firearms in a sexuality-neutral fashion (the 2nd Amendment is for everyone) so can hardly be described as an anti-gay organization. 

Merely speaking at the Values Voter Summit doesn't constitute support for the entire religious right agenda. Personally I wouldn't want to speak at such an event, but politicians need to pander. If a politician could only speak to "respectable" organizations... they'd give like... 5% of the public appearances they currently do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, anthony said:

Any chance of a reply to my thoughts?

Well I agree with them but they weren't really related to the arguments I advanced in the article (like you said, the article didn't open on your computer right?). 

I agree with the classical liberal case for legalizing same sex marriage. But that isn't the same thing as the specifically anti-PC case for same sex marriage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...
On 10/11/2017 at 2:01 AM, studiodekadent said:

I wrote this article in response to the Australian marriage law postal survey currently underway, and it has been published by an Australian think-tank. I think that voting in favor of permitting same sex marriage would actually be a blow to the PC narrative.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I enjoyed the HBO series, "Big Love," which was about plural marriage but it also highlighted the problem with more than one spouse just as other shows have dramatized having "ex- spouses" too. I have only had one wife and I am glad for it.

Could a sentient alien become a human spouse under our current laws, as in that show, "My Favorite Martian?" (joke) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now