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