On marriage and other bullshit.
because I’m sick to death of the discussion.
A marriage is the commitment you make to one another. period.
If you and your partner are really in love, you know that, already. Nothing on earth can change that, ever. if you’re really in love.
Any couple, regardless of sex, deserves the same legal rights as any other couple. This applies as much to Neal and Bob as it does to the opposite sex aging couple living together for convenience who would no more have sex than a tennis ball and a pickup truck.
Nobody is denying gay couples the right to make a commitment to one another, and if anyone does, I will kick their ass.
The issue of marriage, in case you’ve been living under a rock, is about this and this alone: Militant gays want to damage the church because the church will never accept their lifestyle. If you don’t get this, you probably never will.
Through history, if you see a group of people whining to be allowed to join an institution, like a country club, or an all-male military academy, or a basically religeous institution like marriage, their aim is not to be inclusive, but to destroy that institution. Plain and simple. The moment there is nationwide “Gay Marriage” there will be a call to force the churches to allow gay marriage, or be put out of business. This is that road. Want to go down it? I sure as hell don’t.
20 comments Og | Uncategorized
Couldn’t agree more. I will add this, however:
Marriage was instituted by the Church as a Sacrament (a “setting apart” to the Lord). Why are no Gays agitating for the State to recognize Baptism?
ROFLMAO!!!!
Joan, you make my point far more eloquently than I ever could. One serves their agenda, the other does not.
By the way, I do truly believe that this horseshit is limited to a few who want to get their way at all costs, and be damned who they hurt in the process. Most of my gay friends and family members are not like that.
Well put! Nice addition Joan….
I think what the outspoken members of the Gay community want is not tolerance, but really is forced approval.
Hi all ~ I don’t know much about ‘queers’ and I don’t want to! I do know that a disproportionate nmber of them aren’t right in the head, they aren’t fit to parent and giving them anything they ask for won’t mak them happy. Mentally ill people should not be allwoed to marry and for the same reason alot of queers shouldn’t do it either.
Why have they taken it into their heads to attack the church now?
Rusty, it’s not ‘now’. What I’m saying, is that this is the agenda of militant gays, and the reason is they want to be accepted by a group that cannot by the force of it’s convictions accept them, and failing their acceptance to destroy it, as if destruction of the Church would make their lives less sinful.
Look, I’m a million times worse than anything any gay person can do. I don’t make the rules, I don’t even enforce them. But I know what they are.
What you all said is on the mark. The LGBT groups (I think it stands for Let’s Go Bowling Together, but not sure.) are all for gaining across the board acceptance, regardless of the cost to established institutions and religions. It is all about them and to hell with anything and anyone else.
Personally, if Fred and Bob want to tie the knot via a civil union, and are thus accorded all the same legal rights given to any other couple so be it, I have no heartburn over that. But to try and usurp the word “marriage” (thus devaluing it even further then it is now) opens up, however slightly the door to forcing recognition of their unions via “holy matrimony”, and that dog won’t hunt with me. (And given the documented rate at which same sex couples have, you know the lawyers out there are salivating over the potential increase in traffic to their offices.)
I just tell people that I hate all homosexuals and they should be allowed to marry so they can suffer like the rest of us….
In reality, I just don’t give a rat’s ass. Most of my opposition to it has been more because of judicial activism (which I DO despise) than caring if two people of the same sex can file their taxes jointly.
Any other times I’ve spoken out against it has been for the sole purpose of pissing off the libtard fucks pestering me about the subject. Just because.
I agree that gay marriage or legal partnership should not be an issue, they should have the same legal benefits and penalties from the state as heteros.
I disagree that it will in any way affect the church. I’d love to see the (liberal) government try to mandate church policy. Couldn’t pick an easier fight to kick their ass with. Even Sotomayor would be on our side.
“I’d love to see the (liberal) government try to mandate church policy”
Bone, you are so out of your mind you’re out of my mind. Please do a little homework, and come back when you understand. Here are some places to start:
“I’d love to see the (liberal) government try to mandate smoking laws”
“I’d love to see the (liberal) government try to mandate gun laws”
“I’d love to see the (liberal) government try to mandate what you can eat”
“I’d love to see the (liberal) government try to mandate air quality standards”
“I’d love to see the (liberal) government try to mandate fuel costs”
“I’d love to see the (liberal) government try to mandate who is the president of GM”
“I’d love to see the (liberal) government try to mandate bank policy”
The liberal government is DYING to get it’s hands on the church, because the church is what stands between the Church of Liberalism and total power. You don’t agree, but you’re provably, demonstrably, horribly wrong.
It’s a bit more complicated than that, though. Right now, there is no legal contract that allow same sex partners to make medical decisions for their partner; which is a right afforded to hetero couples via marriage. They’re also denied the tax benefits that come with marriage. There is a lot more to this issue than “marriage”, because you have to think about the legal, contractual benefits of marriage. Insurance is another example – because a gay couple isn’t legally married, they don’t have what’s called “an insurable interest” in their partner, which means they can’t get life insurance for their partner.
Woop, forgot about medical power of attorney. Be that as it may, I would hazard a guess that most same-sex couples don’t do that.
Civil unions for gays are increasingly common. Amusingly, the civil union laws written for gays are not allowed to be used by hetero couples. Civil unions should be allowed- in my mind- for any two humans.
The only thing more complex is that the people that ought to be fighting for civil unions are instead fighting for marriage; creating divisiveness instead of improving their lives.
Caleb: can you name anyone you know who has been harmed by anything you mention? because I sure can’t. I have cousins on both sides of my family who are gay and they are both engaged in domestic partnerships that allow them all the insurance and survivorship benefits of married couples, one in indiana and the other in michigan. The point of the post is not to deny the legal rights to anyone, but that’s not what they gay community is after.
It is my opinion that conservatives are going off the rails on this and are destined for a train wreck.
It is my opinion that defending the church is camoflage for denying equal rights for gays, the two issues are not correlated.
It is my opinion that Rush Limbaugh and others are alienating true conservatives with their end of the world hyperbole and rhetoric.
It is my opinion that society does not change slowly and linearly but in spurts, and we are changing fast now. Get on board or get out of the way or get run over.
I am proud to be the first western country with a black president. I disagree with some of his policies, big deal. I disagreed with some of Bush’s policies.
I look forward to many of the changes that are long overdo. I will fight those changes that I disagree with. I will not fight everything that Obama does because of some overriding prejudice.
I don’t think that you’re interested in denying anyone legal contracting rights, mind you. I’m just of the opinion that the easiest way to get them the legal contracting right is to allow gay marriage.
This is one of those “we probably won’t see eye to eye” issues, honestly. I’ve never been involved in the issue, and since I can categorically determine that gay marriage will not harm 1) my faith or 2) my marriage then I say let ’em get married.
So, Caleb: When the government shuts down your church because they won’t perform gay marriages, will that be fine with you? It won’t be fine with me.
And redbone, you’re demonstrably wrong. As soon as Cali started marrying gays, they started lawsuits against churches for not marrying them.
Well, Og, no – that’s because then the Constitution is being violated. I also sort of doubt that would happen; my church won’t marry a hetero couple of they’ve been living “in sin” prior to the marriage, and no one has shut them down yet.
“When the government shuts down your church because they won’t perform gay marriages…”
Yes. The step between refusing gay-marriage in a church and prejudice or ‘racism’ (as interpreted by certain gays and various media) is a small one.
There are churches right now that are not considered legitimate by the government. They are called cults and they do not get the tax shelters of those who are accepted by the government.
Sound crazy at the moment? yep. But remeber that the catholic church was banned by the founding fathers when the country was first established (for other reasons of course…)
Yes. A legal twist here, a tax there and viola!
Caleb:The constitution has NEVER been violated in the name of feelgood agenda, right?
Your church will be gone, and that’s the point.
Sorry your comment went to moderation, I honestly don’t know why.