Entitlement to Government Supported Sex Relationships

Regarding Sawyer's question: "what you would say sitting down in your living room to a gay couple who say...we want gay people to form loving, committed, long-term relationships?"

.
Fine example of a typically sophomoric, leftist question! Camouflaging b.s. is all in the framing. Why is this a b.s. question? Because it's a trick question. It asks a question for which there is no objectively right or wrong answer, yet it sophistically implies that there should be! Although there is no objectively correct answer to such a question, there are morally subjective answers. A subjective answer has to do with respect for values that happen to be culturally shared or inculcated. You don't assimilate culturally-shared, subjective values by dividing a society or by assuming there abide objectively correct answers to be discovered by elites and then dictated to instruct masses how their lives should be lived. Indeed, suppose a community DID decide that contraceptives should not be allowed: do elitists somehow KNOW, to a certainty, that it would be best for federales to step in and "protect" such a community from itself, notwithstanding circumstances probably better known to that community?

.
In most cases, there's little reason to presume it the proper job of elites to seek by force of law to require that locals must accommodate themselves to every expression preferred by elitists, as if it merited funding by taxpayers. The way values are assimilated is to allow stakeholders to assimilate that which they value, at lowest appropriate level. It's not by having the ACLU invite elites to dictate, either yea or nay. Properly challenged, the issue is not: which of many is an objectively best answer or culture? The issue is: at what level should a decision regarding a choice or opportunity be made? Should local communities decide whether their schools may or should teach children to appreciate or even experiment with sophomoric philosophies, strange religions, risks, violence, drugs, sex, gay sex, or group sex? Should local communities be divested of responsibility for making, and living with, such decisions --- instead to be instructed what is to be done, or not done, by their so-called elite betters? Well now, the candidates aren't running for local positions!

.
Sawyer implies that force of nationwide law should entitle gay people to tax revenue financing to encourage and sustain "loving, committed, long-term relationships." If it's a committed long-term relationship, why does it need nationwide approval or funding? The touchy-feely aspect in what Sawyer really meant was: Won't you agree that national laws and resources should be committed to encourage and entitle gay communes to adopt children and to require that all children be inculcated that such entitlement is right? However, she could not pose it that honestly, because then the framing mask would be off. When properly framed, differently acculturated societies will more likely assimilate different answers to such questions. The assimilation will depend on: connivance, ignorance, and greed of elites; access to institutions of mass persuasion or force; traditional conditioning of populace; spoilage of younger generations; faux-wisdom of crony cannibals; and enlightenment and energy of citizenry.

.
One who judges the foundation of America to favor a city on a hill will tend to view Americans as enlightened proprietors, inclined to demand opportunity and dignity --- instead of equal droppings from elites. Such Americans will generally trust that most decisions ought NOT be made at any central or federalized level. Rather, the ONLY decisions appropriate to federales should pertain to: (1) defending the nation from real dangers; (2) supporting standards for currency, roads, and such protection of children as experience shows to be essential to the general health and welfare of the society (if not otherwise amenable to competent local administration); (3) providing social insurance for the most needy and unfortunate (without financing the able or already insured, and without giving incentives to large numbers to live as bums). An enlightened society, allowed to become practiced in accepting responsibility for its opportunities and mistakes, is hardly likely to outlaw contraception or to succumb to bygone hobgoblins that still haunt leftist fantasies.

.
Americans tend to favor defense against territorial invaders and against the undermining of American culture and the undermining of the independence, responsibility, and economy of the citizenry. Presently, open-society, NWO, faux-elite federales are utterly FAILING in the only things they should be doing, while VOMITING a plethora of things they should not be doing. Bottom line: I have no objective opinion about what gays should do (nor, frankly, do I much care!). I do have a subjective opinion about what I, and, hopefully, my local community, should tolerate. Federales should NOT promote federal, financial, or tax incentives for gay unions as being on par with traditional families. This has to do with common-sense, national defense (i.e., propagation of the next generation of defenders). Why should a candidate for federal office be asked questions that deal with issues that should be decided by locals!? Although I am not running for local office, my local community should NOT tolerate the extortion of tax money to be used to condition children to experiment in areas that are best guided by parents. A local community should NOT be seeking, as by by force or violence, to dictate to other local communities. While the fluxing terrain entails competing interests and values, the assimilating competition among such values, so long as peaceable, should best remain with local populations, which are best suited to know their interests and to own and learn from their own mistakes. My urging to intrusive, elite dictators can be summarized as follows: Let people live their lives and stop with the childish, pseudo questions.