Shall we get this out of the way first? Despite my obvious right wing credentials, I really, really do not care what anyone does behind their bedroom door, as long as it involves consenting adults. if you want to dress in a fur suit, go for it. Leather, whips, and chains? I don't care as long as I am not a participant. Man on man, girl on girl, many men on many girls and many girls on many men? Nope, I do not care what you do. I am not sure how to make my position any more clear.
Secondly, If you want to get married, have at it, as long as you are consenting adults. I am not sure why the Government is in the marriage business anyway.
Now, all of you advocates for legalizing homosexual marriage, here is where I draw the line. If same-sex marriage becomes legal in these United States, will your local Baptist preacher, Methodist minister, Catholic priest, Imam or Rabi be required to marry you? Will refusal on moral or religious grounds be justification for a discrimination suit or a knock on the door from Eric Holder's Civil Rights Division?
The reasonable among you will say that could never happen. The militant arm of the gay advocacy would proceed in an instant.
I think that dilemma is the crux of the difference in polls indicating a general acceptance of gay marriage and overwhelmingly lack of support when it comes to passing laws. More than thirty States have decreed marriage is between a man and a woman. It is also the Federal Law of the Land.
I do not care what sexual proclivities you enjoy. I prefer not to think about it. If you are into gay sex, naked midget jello wrestling, masturbating to pictures of kittens, squirter videos, male strippers with socks on their dongs, tattooed fat chicks, felating interns, bone-thin white guys, graphic pygmy sex, shaved nether regions, Japanese cartoon porn, poop munching, toenail chewing, gag balls, blacklight aerobics, naked grandmothers with orange dildos, a Mr. Clean fetish, extremely hirsute mommy parts, dressing like Wonder Woman or Popeye, or even plain old missionary style in the dark of night -- it is of no concern of mine. Just do not expect me to give you a thumbs up and a blessing.
Perhaps now we can move the political discussion to topics that are actually important, like whether Romney hazed some kid 47 years ago.
Well said. Couldn't agree more. And on a side note, your Google hits today should be pretty high!!
ReplyDeleteBravo, my concerns exactly re forced participation by churches.
ReplyDelete-Steve_in_CA
Personally I don't want to see public displays by either gays or straights, keep that shit in the private. Lately, as in the last few years I can state that I have seen more public kissing and fondling by the gay crowd in the local area than by the straights. I am not talking teenagers because they are just plain fucking crazy, I am talking grown ass adults who should know better, it is more a slap in the face than any thing else. As for the marriage part, I really don't care, let them deal with divorce and lawyers like the rest of us. I do agree that some militant gay faction will push the issue on a church, ignoring the fact they can go to the local JP and get married any time they want. Its not about being gay and being married, its about spitting in the face of the non gay community.
ReplyDeleteJames Old Guy
I'm with ya. I think they should have every legal right as spouses. I just have an issue with calling it a marriage as my own personal opinion is that marriage is more of a religious term. I'd prefer they call it a civil union where there is absolutely no legal difference between the two.
ReplyDeleteI see no point is denying some partner their ability to be with their partner's while they are dying even if the family objects. I see no point in not allowing them every right that a straight married couple should have.
Then if some minister feels like he wants to marry gay couples, have at it. But if some do not believe in gay marriage they could not be forced to perform them.
They are not happy with "civil unions" because that does not show the "blessing" of society on their union the way "marriage" does.
ReplyDeleteAnd I don't want our country "blessing" their union. It's one thing to say "I don't care what you do" and "I approve of what you do".
Marriage for 7,000 years has been male/female.
Granted, sometimes male/female/female/female..., but society has come to frown on that, also.
And if you're giving your baby up for adoption, you can't specify it must be a man/woman couple, you have to leave it up to a roll of the dice a couple of gay guys could get Little Johnny. And you'll no longer be able to say homosexuality is disordered, for the whole point is not to get you tolerant of a behavior that you think is wrongheaded and destructive, it is to coerce you to say it's all right.
ReplyDeleteOh, I'm over exaggerating? Lookie here!:
http://global.christianpost.com/news/british-mp-force-churches-to-perform-same-sex-unions-or-close-them-down-55371/
Are Catholic priests required to marry previously divorced people?
ReplyDeleteIf same sex marriage ever does become universal in the US (doubtful in my lifetime, due to America's Puritanical streak), it will be delivered/officiated by civil servants (just as non-religious or civil weddings are done today), as is the practice in the UK and the rest of Europe.
ReplyDeleteOver here, UK, priests and other religious ministers cannot be forced to marry anyone, regardless of sex - they agree to conducting a marriage ceremony.
As for your point, "... I am not sure why the Government is in the marriage business anyway", the answer to that is simple and not remotely sinister: marriage is a legal contract, so regardless of whether you get married in a church, mosque, synagogue or civil ceremony at city hall, everyone has to sign the marriage register (invariably at the venue at which the marriage has taken place). No attendant official, no legal marriage. I know, with your self-proclaimed "right wing credentials" you choose to see conspiracy whenever the topic of 'gubbermint' is raised, but there really isn't one here - it's presence in any marriage ceremony being merely a required legal expedient.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMTS1 wrote: "Oh, I'm over exaggerating?
ReplyDeleteYes, you are. And wrong. And you're also panicking when there's no need to panic.
This British MP (in the URL link you provide) merely voiced an opinion; there is absolutely no prospect, whatsoever, of priests, or anyone else in the UK, being required or otherwise forced to marry anyone - gay or straight.
In addition, there is no proposed legislation which would require places of worship to be used in the marriage of same-sex couples - indeed, the opposite is the case; the current legislation deliberately makes it crystal clear that same-sex couples cannot be married in a place of worship; nor can a religious minister conduct a same-sex marriage ceremony in a place of worship.
Pesky things, these facts, eh? They always ruin an otherwise perfectly good panic.
Lint, I am not sure of the level of "panic" you ascribe my viewpoint. I really do not care if Bill wants to marry William, or if Sally gets hitched to Sue.
ReplyDeleteI understand about the "contract", but it should not be up to the Government to determine who makes said contract.
I guess I was not clear, but I think the difference in the polls on people who have no issue with gay marriage and the actual real poll -- ie., voting on the issue vary for just the reason I stated. There is a fear that churches will be forced into it.
After all, there is an political element that wants to force Catholic Churches to pay for birth control for their employees (or students at Catholic Universities). Forcing the sam eChurches to perform a same-sec marriage is not a big stretch.
Oh..contracts are executed every day without a government official being involved. I signed one this morning.
ReplyDeleteLint makes it sound like a simple contract.
ReplyDeleteIf it was, that is what they'd do.
They want our blessing, our "well speaking" of their situation.
To Ed's comment-
ReplyDelete"Granted, sometimes male/female/female/female..., but society has come to frown on that, also."
Correct.
But interestingly, the Old Testament gives instructions on how the brother of a deceased man is to take his wife as his own.
And the only time the issue is mentioned in the New Testament is in the requirements to be Deacon of the Church.
Otherwise, take as many wives as you can stand before committing suicide.