I don't think I'm mixing lots of issues, L.R., I just think that there are many issues inherent in this topic that need to be addressed.
I think you may be misunderstanding me when I speak of civil disobedience. I'm not saying that peaceful protest is wrong, not at all. Marches, boycotts, demonstrations, petitions, lobbying, etc., all fall within the realm of citizens voicing their grievances. Actions fall outside that realm though when laws are broken in the process of voicing those grievances. In other words, I see a correct way to protest and an incorrect way. And I think people cross the line of our Constitutional right of dissent when they do so, and in so doing they weaken the system instead of making it better and stronger. We can deny our consent, voice our dissent about something without breaking the law to do it.
Nobody's life was at stake in the situation that led to the Boston Tea Party. And since it happened before the Constitution was written I really can't address it in that context, but I see that action as an act of civil disobedience against Great Britain, and I think that those who participated in it were wrong for doing so. Sure they sent a message to Great Britain that they were fed up with the taxes, but they also hurt the private businesses who sent the tea over and didn't get paid. And it was quite a large sum that was lost. And I think I remember reading that some of them were destroyed by the loss. So, in other words, I think they, like the tea, went overboard. Our forbears did some wonderful things, but they sometimes did do some thoughtless, selfish, and stupid things too, and I think the Boston Tea Party was one of those unfortunate incidences, that I, at least, can't find any justification for, and if I remember my history correctly, restitution was one of the thorny issues raised in the negotiations to end the Revolutionary War that Franklin had to deal with.
As for the slippery slope, I think we only have to look at what happened to the Scandinavian society to see how bad things can get. Gays demanded marriage, the laws were changed, and once that happened the institution of marriage lost its meaning and value in the eyes of society in general, even with the gay community. Now most people, straight and gay, just shack-up and don't even bother to get married.
And I don't see the slippery slope issue centered around denying rights to anyone. The danger I see is with changing the definition of marriage and with opening the doors for it to come to mean whatever anybody wants it to mean, especially to groups like NAMBLA. If it can mean anything, then really it will mean nothing, just as happened in Scandinavia.
And I can't agree that those who are breaking the law are serving the superior law of the Constitution. I know that is what they are using as a justification, but I personally don't agree with them. We don't serve the Constitution or society when we violate the law, we make a mockery of it by doing so, in my opinion. Everyone does have equal protection under the law. That does not mean however that everyone is entitled to claim the benefits of something for which they do not meet the conditions. Equal protection does not mean that we have carte blanche to assign to ourselves the benefits of something that has contingencies attached to it. Now whether someone feels those contingencies are fair or not is another matter, and they can certainly use their Constitutional right of protest, but no, I don't see that they have the right to break the law because they don't agree with it, and then use the Constitution as the justification.
No we shouldn't judge people, I agree, but we can judge behaviors as damaging to society in general and to children in particular. We can be accepting of people and loving of people without necessarily condoning everything that they do.
Yes, Cherie was a product of an abusive heterosexual environment, and according to her, her story was similar to lots of other lesbians that she had spoken with, which, in my mind gives greater weight to the theory that the gay lifestyle probably has more to do with environmental conditioning than with biology. Studies with identical twins leans to that probability as well. That Cherie suffered abuse in her childhood heterosexual environment does not negate the fact that her children did suffer emotional and psychological harm in the homosexual environment that they were raised in, and from the studies that I have read, the gay/lesbian environment is significantly more unstable, emotionally, psychologically and socially, statistically, than a traditional one, and these estimations come from women personally involved in that lifestyle as well.
It is regretable that children have to suffer at all, in any type of home environment. And I think as a society we should make it a priority that they have as stable an environment as possible. That should be everyone's main concern, what is best for them, when evaluating lifestyle issues and other issues that can impact on their well-being.