My Thoughts On Gay Marriage

Gay Marriage Homer Simpson SC My Thoughts On Gay Marriage

Western civilization is now described as post-modern. That means among other things that basically, it no longer believes in an objective, universal truth, except perhaps for certain mathematical or scientific information. That is one reason why multi-culturalism and diversity are so popular today. Western civilization no longer believes in itself, those principles and ideals that made it what it was, that set it apart from the Third World. And the United States no longer knows and understands what set it apart from the Old World and what made us exceptional, which is another long-held belief that is being questioned more and more frequently. The younger generation doesn’t even understand it anymore, yet alone believes it.

The more diverse we become, the more our principles reduce to the lowest common denominator; and instead of our principles guiding our conduct, our conduct forms our principles.

The new guiding principles of life in the West today are equality and tolerance. Equality used to mean equal in worth, such that the idea of nobility and royalty were rejected, and one’s status was based on what one achieved rather than what one inherited (though we didn’t regard our heroes and our most successful as any better than the rest of us.) Now, equality means that we don’t value and reward success, but we seek to diminish it so that we are all more ‘equal’ to everyone else.

The old rule of life was to love your neighbor; now we are instructed to merely tolerate him, which is just another way of saying that we can and perhaps should just ignore him. Instead of having ideals and values that we strived to achieve individually and as a society, everyone is left to decide for themselves what, if any, values they want to value.

What does all this have to do with gay marriage? Gay marriage is less about equality (under the new understanding of equality) than about changing an institution of society that has existed in every culture and society since human beings were first on earth.

Marriage has always been about raising the next generation, or rather that raising the next generation has always been about marriage. And mothers and fathers have always been considered essential to the well-being of our children.

Since then, our society has essentially removed child-bearing and child-rearing from the structure and strictures of marriage. However, I don’t believe that we actually believe that we have gained anything of real value in the process. I don’t believe that we believe our children benefit in any way from this, except perhaps in those cases where couples had coupled like stray dogs without any concern for the consequences.

The next step is now to remove the idea that children ideally need parents of two different sexes for their optimal wellbeing.

Gay marriage promotes the idea that the number of parents is more important than the differences of parents, that the fact of a present adult is more important than a biological connection, that a marriage of a man and a woman is not superior in any way to any other human relationship. We already see this in some countries in Europe (and I believe also in California) where the term ‘parent’ is now replacing those of ‘father’ and ‘mother.’

It will be asserted that marriage is about love and commitment and not primarily about children. But you don’t need marriage to have love and commitment, and civil unions have been created to help with legal issues that have arisen with these more accepted new lifestyles.

But when you consider or redefine marriage as an institution, children will become involved. Not in every marriage, but new rules will emerge to reflect new realities. They will effectively scuttle the idea of children having or needing male and female role models. They will diminish the perception that children need a father and/or a mother. I believe also that they will diminish significantly the number of children being born to and raised by the biological parents. This will become thought of more and more as unimportant.

Whether you believe that humans were God-designed or products of evolution, biological parents have always been considered the best way to raise our children. Laws and court decisions will reflect the new reality that gender and biology are minor matters when it comes to parenting.

In high school, we read novels like “Brave New World”, where sexual fulfillment was encouraged apart from marriage and children were raised apart from families, families as we were accustomed to knowing them. This was done to minimize real thinking and responsibility and to give the authorities more influence (read: control) over the lives of their constituents. What was science fiction then seems prophetic today. But we need not assign sinister motives to those involved.

We need to ask: do we as a society believe that progress as human beings and a society develops in a straight line upward, where any change is viewed as an improvement over what was previous; or should we be very careful in changing basic structures of our society that have existed everywhere at all times?

We often describe change as swings of a pendulum, where prevailing norms are reacted to and final resolutions often meet in the middle, reflecting parts of both positions. Our society is still feeling the exhilaration of having thrown off the shackles of traditional (read: religious) constraints and is now exploring the possibilities of creating a new and improved world order. We should be conscious that the pendulum is still in motion, and we shouldn’t commit ourselves to something that can have serious adverse consequences down the road.

Gay marriage defines a new normal unlike any known throughout history. It is not about rights but recognition. It will seek to remove any connotation in our society that a heterosexual marriage is in any way superior to a homosexual one.

I am asserting that redefining marriage is about a lot more than making homosexuals feeling affirmed in their sexual orientation. It will fundamentally change our society in ways that we can’t even imagine now. It is not so much for the benefit of the gay couples but for its affect on our society.

This is not about tolerance, letting two people live their lives the way they want. This is about a movement to make a paradigm shift in society. It is a statement that we now know better than anyone else prior in history. We think that because we can make a law, we can make something right, that we can make a new reality.

We have civil unions now to reflect the desire of our society to accommodate those who react to the prevailing norm without changing its basic structure. They recognize the desire of some people to commit to relationships that may need some legal refinements to address new situations. But it still leaves intact our basic social structure.

The reality is that a man and a woman make a child. Whether this was God’s idea or Mother Nature’s, that’s the fact. Children do best when raised by their natural mother and father. We have allowed the institution of marriage to crumble, and we believe the fault is with the institution rather than in ourselves. Now we want to make a new institution with the same name rather than trying to fix the first one. We are willing to raise children in ways that existed only in extreme hardship cases in the past, and we seem eager to encourage this.

What is the urgency here? What is the crisis? Adults can pretty much do what they want. But for the sake of our children, we need to promote families with husbands and wives who love and support each other raising their children together. Anything that in any way minimizes that should be set aside without any hesitation.

Related posts:

  1. Gay Marriage Is Wrong For America We were married 29 years ago in Seattle, Washington. This…
  2. The Marriage Meltdown For every high-profile celebrity wedding that makes headlines, it seems…
"Loophole" from Obama's IRS: Protect your IRA or 401(k) with gold and silver... click here to get a NO-COST Info Guide >

Comments

  1. nexgenesis says:

    My 1st reaction is that there is no such thing as a gay man. There is such a thing as a homosexual and lesbians. When one considers that marriage is consumated thru the act of sexual intercourse and how that is played between 2 homosexual men, it becomes rather disgusting. It is an act of perversion between 2 men, nothing less and not even worthy of being recognized as any thing else.

  2. You say "Western civilization no longer believes in itself, those principles and ideals that made it what it was"…Have you forgotten that slavery was legal in these United States from before its founding until 1863? You then say, "The more diverse we become, the more our principles reduce to the lowest common denominator; and instead of our principles guiding our conduct, our conduct forms our principles." I can already deduce that you must be a white male from your viewpoint. Because the original principles were guided by thinking such as: that although all men are created equal, the Negro, under law, was only a mere percentage of a person. It's not my objective here to get on a diatribe about race and I don't think you're intentionally trying to put down. However, I strongly disagree with the idea that because we are becoming more diverse, that we are somehow losing our principles. The only thing that is changing is we are becoming more accepting of the principles which guide the lives of others. Before, the numbers of white Christians were far greater than that of any other ethnicity. Today, "minorities" actually make up a majority of the population. This has always been a country of majority rule. And we have always been a nation of immigrants. As immigrants become an accepted part of the population, their rights follow. Groups such as Irish, German, Jewish, Japanese, African and even Catholic. All these groups were hated and discriminated against at one point or more in history and some would even argue still are. And to the point of gay marriage…it isn't about the state condoning one thing over another. It is simply about providing citizens equal protection under the law. Weather or not it goes against the very most basic of your instincts to consider marriage between a man and a man as marriage is really irrelevant. The fact is, they consider it to be marriage. And their decision does not somehow encroach on your right to consider marriage as you wish to consider it. Your position, however, encroaches on their individual rights to do so…since you think it ought to be laws to disallow gay marriage under law. Gay marriage is actually a misnomer. There is no gay marriage, only marriage under the law. And it needs to be allowed so that, for example, in the case of Edith Windsor, who lived with her same sex partner for 42 years and was denied the right to marry by DOMA. When her spouse died, she was ordered to pay inheritance tax on the estate. The court found this to be unconstitutional and overruled DOMA as a violation of equal protection under the constitution. More and more people must realize that you can think whatever you like, but the law allows equal protection and weather or not you think gay people are despicable or not is really irrelevant. Get with the changing times.

    • Edwardkoziol says:

      would it be the same if a man or woman wanted to marry his dog then this would be honky dory.They should be protected just like queers and lezzies.

      • well said Edward,
        the next thing we know that these sick people will be fighting to marry their dogs. I don't think their is much difference, it is sick and unnatural.

      • Frankly, I don't care if someone wants to marry their dog. As long as he doesn't fornicate in public, I don't really give a damn what he does. They won't be able to have children because they are from different species. So who cares?

    • Seeks_the_truth says:

      I wish to dispel some of the misinformation you make in your statement.
      The first: "I can already deduce that you must be a white male from your viewpoint."
      Considering it was the Negro families that sold their own members to the Spaniards is completely overlooked. So is the fact that other than Whites owned slaves in early America. You also seem to ignore the fact that Native Americans were slaves. Many Natives, like myself, are mistaken for a White. As a Native who's family members were slaves and murdered I agree with the authors opinion. I'm also a female so your deduction appears to be based in bigotry.
      Another point is your statement: "I strongly disagree with the idea that because we are becoming more diverse, that we are somehow losing our principles." This could not be further from the truth. Let me give you examples. Detroit MI was a town of hard working middle class Americans. There were profitable small businesses, families living in the many homes. There was crime, but not rampant like now. Today, Sharia law is the rule in Detroit, which is as far away from American principals you can get. It is permissible for Christians to be stoned, attacked and beat with no law enforcement intervention. There are many videos documenting this. In other towns and states, you have what is called the "knockout game" being "played" on unassuming Americans doing nothing more than walking on the street. It used to be American principals not to assault another for the "fun of it". Our freedom of speech has been seriously curtailed as shown by "free speech ZONES". Freedom of Speech is our 1st Amendment. How much more American "principal" could you get? I won't include the assaults by unions on unassuming citizens simply for having a different opinion.
      Now lets get to the point that obviously angers you the most. Gay "marriage". All citizens are afforded equal protection under the law. What you want is something more than other citizens are afforded. One way my rights will be encroached is I no longer have a choice if a "gay couple" purchases the home next door. I will be subjected to something I find morally wrong with no recourse. My children will be forced to be exposed to this unnatural, abnormal act. There is an attempt to make law it punishable to speak against gay marriage. In some areas it is law. Doesn't that encroach my freedom of speech? In some cities it is illegal for a man and woman to openly kiss in public, but this law does not pertain to two men or two women. It specifically states "man and woman". It's also discriminatory to only allow "gay marriage". To call it "only marriage under the law", then all joinings should be allowed. Brothers should be allowed to marry sisters, Mothers marry sons, fathers to daughters. You've made it abundantly clear that morals have no bearing in this matter. Since these "marriages" were outlawed on moral grounds alone, they should be rescinded. We must also allow bestiality. Remember, morals have no bearing.
      Rescinding the DODT in the military was the largest attack on personal freedom there was. Now our military personnel are FORCED, against their will, to LIVE with the "opposite sex". A man can claim to be a woman and because he dresses like one and "acts" like one, irregardless if he still has a penis, he can/must be allowed to live in the womens dorms. Where are the rights of the natural women not to be forced to live with someone she feels uncomfortable with? The problem is deemed her problem and not the situation being forced. Same sex rape has skyrocketed in the military, but you won't hear about these crimes.
      Your argument of Edith Windsor is irrelevant. Inheritance tax applies to any estate where only one is on the legal documents. If Edith had placed her "spouse" on the deed, bank account and any/all other legal documents, no estate tax would have been assessed. Her "spouse" would have been the surviving owner. The other fallacies on gay partners can't make legal/medical decisions was debunked by simple documents called a Power of Attorney. Because some are not intelligent enough to see legally where they stand can't be blamed on "gay marriage" being illegal.
      American principals ARE our moral standings and values. By attempting to claim we are not losing the principals that made America is ludicrous. This IS an attack on the very morals and values our principals are based on.
      I, for one, refuse to sell out my morals and values to "go with the flow" and be a follower like others seem to be doing. I will stand fast to the principals that made America the greatest country on Earth.
      Feel free to sell yours. Obviously you don't think much of them anyways.

      • A well written response. I respect your passion and eloquence. My counter: The fact that Negro families sold their own members to Spaniards is not the point. I agree one hundred percent with you and would even like to add that the Native Americans have been and are among the most brutally repressed peoples in all of world history. They were victims of Genocide and the worst epidemic in global history in addition to all other social and political insults (this is not a strong enough word) and repressions. That is also not the point.
        My point was to draw attention to the fact that the formation of our government and the construction of our constitution was a matter decided by wealthy, white, males and was subject to all the biases of that group. The most oppressed groups of our country since its founding have been and I would argue, still are, anyone who is not white, rich men. That includes white women and other poor white folks. But of course, everyone knows that the colored (all darker ethnicities) folks always got the worst of it. But my main idea was really a criticism of the notion that somehow we have fallen from grace. When, in fact, since, the birth of the nation, it has been hell for a good deal of its inhabitants. A hell which was designed to keep negroes, natives, foreigners, women, and other non land owning whites in their places. So I strongly disagree with the notion that even our founding principals were somehow unassailable.
        The next point I would like to make is that our founding fathers were not of one mind with agreement to a one true religion or even one uniform moral approach. It is good to remember that the constitution is a compromise and an amalgamation of passionate viewpoints coming from many times, complete opposite ends of the spectrum. The way it is today I suppose. I will admit that saying something like “I can already deduce that you must be a white male” was not the best way to say what I was trying to say .What I meant was, “I can tell that you are sympathetic with the viewpoint of white men. “ So…apologies for that. Even though those comments weren’t directed at you.

        • Seeks_the_truth says:

          "A well written response" Thank you but you almost sound surprised. Is it because I'm a woman or a Native you say that? Do you expect thoughtful expressions from White males but none others? Not all "minorities" rely on the government for their livelihoods. Only one race wallows in pity demanding to be taken care of for supposed wrongs done to family members centuries ago. Only one race has become violent against society demanding it's their "right" to force "justice" against just the White man.They have now added other races into their acrimoniousness. Just how were Asians involved in the Blacks "suffrage"?
          The fact Negroes sold their family members into slavery to the Spaniards IS the point. Their hatred of the Whites is misplaced. Very simply, if anyone should "pay" for slavery, it should be their own who sold them. If their brother had not sold them, they would not had been slaves. Spaniards kidnapped few. It was Natives that was taken because we would not sell our people. The majority were bought, but yet the end user is held at fault. Forget the fact that 90% of those that owned slaves treated them well. They were well fed, decently housed. Any good business person knows you take care of your equipment. So asking them to work for the funds paid to their families was considered wrong? I'm speaking of the mindset then.
          You seem to enjoy using the words "wealthy, White men" in a derogatory fashion. Here are some facts you may not be aware of. Until the past century, Whites were the dominate race on the Earth. The British Empire, Prussia Kingdom even the British Mandate held the highest populations, and yes, they were considered "White men". Is it such a surprise they would claim a part of the New World for their own, considering parts of this Nation was already owned by Spaniards and the French. Because it was the British Empire that first "owned" our part of the New World, it's doubtful they would allow a Japanese, Chinese or even French man have input on the direction our country would take.
          Along with this, there were 70 individuals chosen to attend the meetings with the initial purpose of amending the Articles of Confederation. Of these individuals, only 55 attended most of the meetings. The 39 that did sign the Constitution were teachers, physicians, farmers and some were paupers. Robert Morris and James Wilson, among others who signed, died penniless. There went the "Wealthy White man" theory.
          While in todays times teachers are among the wealthiest, I doubt that was the case then. One example was shown to us recently in the CT shooting. Leavy's mother and father were educators but yet she owned a home valued over $1,000,000.00. But teachers are underpaid, right?
          Speaking about the "bias" of this group, you ARE aware that Benjamin Franklin was the president of the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery (1787)? Thomas Fitzsimons served as president of the Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce. Fitzsimons was concerned with religious affairs, public education, and served as trustee of the University of Pennsylvania. Jacob Brown was involved with attempts to improve the infrastructure of the state of Delaware in such areas as toll roads, canals, and bridges. He also served on the board of the College of Wilmington and showed concern for many other philanthropic activities.
          Yes, such horrible, biased men. How could any man want to abolish slavery? How could these biased men want to help their fellow man? Did they forget they were "wealthy white men"?
          Seems you've also forgotten about The American Colonization Society (in full, The Society for the Colonization of Free People of Color of America), founded in 1816. Just 40 years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence. It was the primary vehicle to support the return of free African Americans to what was considered greater freedom in Africa. It helped to found the colony of Liberia in 1821–22 as a place for freedmen. Among its founders were Charles Fenton Mercer, Henry Clay, John Randolph, and Richard Bland Lee. Paul Cuffee, a wealthy mixed-race New England shipowner and activist,(again, "Wealthy white man?") was an early advocate of settling freed blacks in Africa. He gained support from black leaders (BLACK LEADERS?) and members of the US Congress for an emigration plan. In 1811 and 1815–16, he financed and captained successful voyages to British-ruled Sierra Leone, where he helped African-American immigrants get established.
          Let me get this right. So wealthy BLACK men LEADERS, just 40 years after the Constitution was signed, took up the cause of giving freedmen a free ride home 200 YEARS ago? My how history gets twisted.
          You're so right. Blacks never had a fair shake. I remember my mother telling me stories how they lived in the same houses next door to Black families. How her father worked side by side with a Black man in the coal mines. She went to school and sat next to a Black girl. Was also her good friend who ate supper at her house many times. How horrible that Blacks were forced to live, work and school next to a "white" person.
          Still today Blacks aren't allowed in schools, buy a home or work a job. Such suppression!
          I'm rather curious. When does personal responsibility come into play? While the Constitution was an agreement and compromise, it did center on one truth. There IS a God and our rights come ONLY from him, no matter by what name you call him.

          • As I said before, your first response was well written. This response is as hackneyed and skewed as your other response, although it contains more historical information. When I said “a well written response” it had nothing to do with the fact that you are a woman or a Native. You said that, not me. It had to do with the fact that you had a “well written response”. This first paragraph is really rich. Just because others share the blame in slavery and yes, there were African slave traders, does not absolve the European nations from blame. That’s like saying the Natives deserved smallpox because they took the purposely infected blankets from the settlers. But it was their faults for taking them. Where was the personal responsibility? They should have made their own blankets! (I’m being sarcastic)

            Forcing justice against the white man? Hatred of the whites? What are you talking about? This whole paragraph is nonsense. Blacks were mistreated under slavery, and although some of their own kind sold them, it wasn’t the victims’ fault. Your position is incredibly impassionate and full of bigotry. 90% of those who owned slaves treated them well? What exactly in the HELL are you talking about? Where are you getting this information? And they were slaves! They had no freedom! You minimize that fact because they were ALLEGEDLY treated “WELL”? What absolute outrageousness and insult! You sully the suffering of slaves held against their will with your words.

            So what if whites were the dominant race? Yes naturally they will try and exclude other races. But this government was built upon the principle that all men are created equal. So, I’m not really sure what point you’re trying to make here. That it’s natural for those in power to exclude others? That I agree with. That it’s right to do so? That I don’t really agree with.

            You are aware the that the Articles of Confederation is not the Constitution right? So no, there did not go the wealthy white man theory. Among those who were present at the constitutional conventions, how many were women or minorities? It’s further evidenced that only land owning white men had the right to vote in this country at its founding. It isn’t some bigotry that I’m espousing because I hate wealthy white men. I happen to be a white man. It just happens that the law in this country was actually created by white land owning men at the constitutional convention, and the laws reflected their biased viewpoint. They had good ideas for a good deal of other things, but it happens that they excluded women and minorities from voting and so forth.

            Teachers among the wealthiest? HA! You make me laugh again. Where is the supporting data for this? According to the OECD's findings, we pay our teachers about 60% of what their educational peers earn. That's way less akin to developed countries like Germany and Australia, where pay is closer to 90%, and more in line with Italy, Poland, and Slovenia. Weather or not you think that number is exaggerated, there is CERTAINLY no evidence to support he fact that teachers are even near being “among the wealthiest”.

            I am not saying that all white men are evil. There have been many, great white men who did many charitable and great things. I am simply saying that the laws of this nation have been biased towards white men. Once again as evidenced by the right to vote only being given to women in 1947, 171 years after the nations founding. And minorities not until 1965. And just because you bring up individual examples of things being different than the norm of the time, does not mean that the problems didn’t exist. Because your mother lived in the same house next door to black families also means nothing since your mother was a Native and would have been considered the same as Black in those days of segregation. Furthermore, the segregation ban was for public property and public buildings. Regardless, I don’t care what your mother saw or didn’t see, segregation existed and in “inherently unequal” conditions weather you want to believe it or not.
            And the last thing about God. Perhaps our rights come from God, perhaps they do not. But if they do, then who is it that decides exactly what those rights are and how are we to know the result of those decisions? I think that process is the main one by which people tend to disagree. For example, if you think God hates homosexuals (maybe you do maybe you don't), then that must be based on some first hand knowledge of what God thinks, or on some scripture that you believe is the word of God. In which case, both of those things are subject to disagreement based on their merit in fact.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            See my other response.
            Until you learn facts, and are willing to accept them, of the positions you wish to argue this is a moot conversation.

          • You mean until I accept your opinions, this is a moot conversation. Facts clearly have nothing to do with your rationale, if it can be called that. I can''t believe you actually said it wasn't all that bad for black people in the 1800's. Are you also one that would deny that the Jewish holocaust never happened? If you were black in the 1800's, you were denied access to public buildings for white people, denied the right to vote, and were very likely a target of racial violence, which was the norm back then, or hunted by the KKK depending on where you lived. What is your point? That those things aren't all that bad or just that they never happened? What is your answer for slavery? This is the most disgusting racist tripe that I have ever heard. Then you say 90 percent of slave masters treated their slaves well? Are you completey mad? You call being shackled, forced to work, and fed table scraps not that bad? Or do you deny that that ever happened as well? Forget about the whippings and beatings and beingold away from your family. You're right! When does personal responsibility come into play? It is obviously their fault since some families sold their kin to the spanish. Are you completely off your rocker? How dare you even have the audacity to suggest that it is the fault of the slaves for being enslaved. It isnt aout who is asking for reparations today and so forth. You can agree or dissagree with that, but why cant you just admit that slavery was a scourge of injustice and the laws which denied black people the right to vote were the same? And since you're a native, your people have both been discriminated against by the same government. So it's not ok when its done to you or others either. How dare you have the neck to call me a bigot when you say such things. You've gone off on so many tangents saying Im Hispanic, low income, that black people didn't have it that bad, that I'm attacking Christians and white people. Why don't you just listen to what I said? I said there was a bias in law that favored white rich people, which is not surprising since the constitution was written by rich white people. I don't hate white people or rich people or Christians and I'm not attacking any if them. I am simply stating the fact that minorities suffered terribly under our countries Laws in the past and with the example of homosexuals today,they are denied the right to marry. Why else did there need to be a women's rights and a civil rights movement if injustice wasnt prevalent? I have no problem with Christians or white men contrary to your accusations. I have not said one thing to condemn those groups. Also, Jews are in no way Christians, you are sadly misinformed about that. PS, I am not Hispanic, gay, or low income.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            Facts = History
            "this is a moot conversation"
            I said that quite some time ago. Are you beginning to comprehend? We can only hope.

      • The next point you make about Detroit is interesting. I don’t deny that there probably are many miscarriages of justice happening in that town and in Dearborn. I don’t mind if you are mad about it, and I applaud groups who are taking on the role of activist in this environment. Weather or not there is true systemic corruption there, I don’t know. It wouldn’t really surprise me. Because that’s the way it worked in the south during the time of the clan when black folks went on trial…an all white jury and a white judge and a white police force equaled a guilty verdict if you were black. It was bullshit back then too. I’m not saying we should accept it, but I am challenging the fact that somehow it was a great and just country before, and now we’re “losing” our values. That’s just nonsense. The truth is, it’s always been like this.
        Civil liberties have been suppressed routinely as a matter of fact in this country since the dawn of it. I do not, however, see this Shariah law as a nation wide crisis as you do. Governments tend to favor the larger populations of local areas. So sorry that Dearborn is now full of Muslims. But frankly, I never liked having to say the pledge of allegiance with “one nation under god”. And I considered that a serious attack on my liberties, and when did anybody ever give two shits about that. It’s just the way it was, because most people were Christians in my neighborhood. I just think that Christians are not used to this special brand of US government injustice and they are really surprised to see it happening to them. Because they are “true Americans”. I’m not saying they’re wrong, but I am saying “welcome to the club”, it has been this way forever…maybe we can change it together by electing officials who will stand up for our collective civil liberties and rights to publically demonstrate. I’m in that boat with you.
        I’m sorry that you find gay marriage and sex morally reprehensible. I did say that the current issue is an issue of legality and not morality. So there are two points to be made here. In the legal arena, I’m afraid a ban on same sex marriage has no place since it is not equal protection under law. I don’t need to argue this one because the supreme court will decide this issue one way or another and we will all abide by it. I am confident that they will come down in favor of letting same sex couples marry. But I suppose time will tell.

        The second point is the morality. This is a more contentious point. I like your point ad absurdum that gay sex is tantamount to bestiality. It is hyperbole but apparently expresses the intensity of your feelings and actually has ground in rationality. However, your morals are based in the bible. I disagree with your moral premises. I fervently support your right to feel and think that way and I believe you should do what you want and feel is right in your own home and peacefully in public if you choose and its within the bounds of AGREED upon morality.
        However, my moral argument is just that. Democratic law should reflect the morals of the many, not just the few. I disagree with your moral principles. I don’t believe that the law should reflect your moral principles just because you believe them to be true. And just because you find it reprehensible for a gay couple to deign to exist in your neighborhood does not mean that it is in truth reprehensible. And guess what. If you don’t like it, you can move.

        Now on a personal note, (just my opinion) even if you believe that god finds homosexuality a sin, then it is not your personal mandate to dole out justice for him. I believe he has that power on his own. Religion is a personal freedom. But you cannot impose your will on the whole country. Amish people chose to live in separate areas cut off from the rest of the world to practice their strict ways of life without interference. If you don’t want to be in a military barracks with a gay man, then don’t join the army. Anyway, it is clear we are not going to agree on this issue. So, thanks for the thoughtful response, good luck in your fight, best of wishes, and enjoy your Christmas.

        • Seeks_the_truth says:

          I've already dispelled the fallacy that Blacks have had it so tough and their civil liberties suppressed. This fact was shown when in the 1800's there were many wealthy Black men and leaders. The Blacks decided they wanted more than they were entitled to and forcibly take. Their lack of judgment and loss of morals and values is their own undoing, and no one else's. Again, when does personal responsibility fit in here?
          How interesting you demand justice, freedom of religion and no restrictions on personal liberties but yet you don't see an issue with Sharia law, which is nothing BUT restrictions and force of religion. You complain that the word God is in the pledge of allegiance, which you are not forced to say, but haven't an issue with forced conversion to the islamic religion. So are we truly free or not? You protest against injustice, but it's perfectly acceptable to you for Christians to be unjustly attacked and treated. If Christians were/are so unjust, how did the synagogues, mosques and other religious buildings become so plentiful? We even have Satanic churches. There seems to be issues in your view.
          As with "gay marriages" I'm sorry you sold your morals and values just to "go with the flow". To be part of the "anarchy group". The "attempting to be cool" group. You see, standing for what's right has always been the harder path. Has always been vilified. The reward is so much greater though to stand your ground. There's the easy path, the one you're on, and the right path. I choose what's right.
          On the legal end one thing you seem to forget, irregardless of how the SCOTUS rules, the final law stands with the states. According to the Constitution, the power is designated to the states to rule, or not, on these matters. Currently, the majority of states have ruled against "gay marriage".
          On to the moral stance. You've made it very clear you believe morality has no place in the marriage contract. I like your point ad absurdum that bestiality is "morally wrong" but "gay marriage" isn't. Are you not doing exactly what you accuse others of? Forcing their morals upon others? Just what makes your "moral view" correct and others wrong? What gives you the right to judge but others not?
          On top of this, you assume. You make a statement of fact that my beliefs are based in the Bible. I don't remember mentioning this. So yet again, you jump to a conclusion not based in fact. Scientifically, gay unions goes against the very fabric of nature. To propagate the species, one male and one female must join. There are no alternatives. Nature matches same species with one of each gender. While you can argue that at times two of the same gender join, they can never procreate. Therefore these two gene supplies will cease to exist.
          Not only can they not procreate, they are ousted from any herd, gaggle or pack. The others are born with the inherent "sense" that this is unacceptable.
          So gay unions are not only morally wrong, they are naturally incompatible.
          It would also serve you to understand we live in a Republic. If anyone is going to move, it will be those that nature finds reprehensible.
          On a personal note, it is not I who is passing out judgment on homosexuality. It appears God is. AIDS is a disease of homosexuality. They also can not procreate without assistance. You're free to your opinion, but when you start encroaching my freedom, this is where the trouble begins.
          America began as a Christian nation. It is you and those like you encroaching on us. You are free to find your own little land and make a life away from all else, just as the Amish do.
          I can also tell you never served in the military. If you believe military personnel will sit quietly and allow our defense to be weakened, you better think again. It's being done as we speak.
          So, thanks for sharing your opinion. Good luck in your fight. I don't "celebrate" Christmas, but you have a Merry Christmas yourself.

          • Your first response was well written. This one is borderline psychotic. You have most certainly not dispelled anything with the regards of the treatment of black folk in more modern times and certainly not in the 1800. I'm not sure which "wealthy black leaders" you are talking about in the 1800. You must mean Fredrick Douglass, who was actually a slave before having a voice. What a ridiculous example you use to try and negate the rest of black suffering in that time period. Forced segregation and no voting rights. Separated conditions which were later struck down in the supreme court as "separate but inherently unequal". Then you say where does personal responsibility fit in? So they are personally responsible for the remnants of slavery and racism in this country? What inane tripe you spout. Insulting, inane, appalling, ignorant tripe.
            You're off an another psychotic tangent in the second paragraph. I don't personally follow Shariah law. I don't think it should be state law. But I think if you are Muslim, and elements of Shariah law that you apply to YOURSELF and are not illegal by the laws of the USA, then you should be able to practice them freely. If they are counter to our country's laws, then the practice should be struck down. And I don't think actually that Christians are unjust, I'm not sure where you got that from.
            Your third paragraph is comical. It just makes me laugh. I don't have a moral issue with gay marriage or gay sex or any of it because I never have. Not because I have sold my morals. Your argument continues to degenerate by saying I'm part of the "Anarchy" group, which I'm not really sure what that is, but as it so happens, I do not consider myself an Anarchist. Or the "trying to be cool" group. I'm not even going to justify that with an answer. That's just childish. I am standing for what's right. I have many gay friends and I think they are stand up people and I stand with them for their rights as American citizens.
            Of course, without a constitutional amendment, the states are free to make bans on gay marriage. Of course, you also know, that the SCOTUS hears the appeals on challenges to the constitutionality of these laws. So therefore, if they strike it down in one state, it creates a precedent thereby making it easy to strike down the law in other states if challenged.
            The difference between what I am doing morally and what you are doing is that I believe others should have the right to marry. You believe that you should be able to restrict this right. Therefore, you are impinging on their rights, and not I on yours.
            If science as you say "goes against" (which science does not do since it is objective and non opinionated) homosexuality, then why has it been observed in at least 1500 species in nature and well documented in 500 of them? It would seem the laws of nature suggest that homosexuality is of nature and indeed very natural. Gay unions are not naturally wrong. What is wrong is your logic and your thinking about nature. Your logic about procreation seems solid to you, however, by observing other species and our own as well, you can see that homosexual behavior is indeed very common. So I'm afraid your logic is debunked by natural observation, which, is actually what science is.
            Once again, your logic is incredibly flimsy on the point that you assert that God is dishing out punishment for homosexuality in the form of AIDS. That is merely one possibility with no evidence whatsoever to back it up other than what you think God might do. And I say, you have no idea what God, the almighty powerful and merciful one, would do in any situation. In fact, it's rather blasphemous that you would even suggest that you know what the all knowing one thinks or does.
            And your last point is the coup de grâce to your horribly stated argument. America most certainly did not begin as a Christian nation. The first slogan was "E pluibus unum", one from many. It didn't change to "in God we trust" until 1956. And the pledge of allegiance with the words "under god" wasn't adopted until 1942. Furthermore, Washington would never publicly admit to being a Christian and Jefferson was regularly accused of being hostile to Christianity and famously took his scissors to the Bible to cut out any incidences of divine interaction. Also, although 73% of Americans define themselves as Christians, only 9% define religion as the most important thing in their lives. So America is not a Christian nation in the same way that say, Iran is an Islamic nation. And finally, if you don't celebrate Christmas, then why do you say "America began as a Christian nation. It is you and those like you encroaching on us. " I assume, by "us" you don't mean you, since you're not a Christian apparently.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            You've misunderstood. I don't care about your opinion. I was making reference about how once again your bigotry was shining brightly. You are so preoccupied with your faux outrage, you almost drool as you make a pathetic attempt at casting vehement aspersions.
            I will say one thing. I can deduce from your active, bitter assault on wealthy White men, along with your patronization of Blacks as well as defending the imaginary assault on "gay marriage, you are a middle aged White probably of Hispanic decent male who either is gay or has close friends that are and who is on the poorer side of the financial scale. I also know you voted for oblameo and believe in "redistributing the wealth". How do I know this? Your jealousy of wealth shows you are poor. Only those who are handed to or feel they should not work for wealth are jealous of those who are. Only those who are jealous voted for oblameo.
            Now your refusal to accept the facts of history, as well as twisting history to fit your agenda, tells me you are not of the White race which is proud of the great Christian nation the founding fathers built. This means you are Black or Hispanic. Since you never said "my folks", it then becomes clear you're of Hispanic decent to some degree.
            I wish I was able to give you the same kudos about being a good orator. All you did was throw in that trite platitude about "wealthy white men" and "Blacks are suppressed". This whining and the pity parties are getting quite old.
            So yet again, when does personal responsibility come in?
            I've dispelled your misconception that it was "wealthy White men" who wrote the Constitution, but yet you ignore history. I can understand why you would. To accept history, you must accept the fact that it's a lie you're propagating. No easy feat. But that is what happens when a person such as yourself, wishes to change laws they neither accept nor understand.
            It seems the first act of order is you actually learn and understand the laws of our land.
            As for gays, I assume these "studies" you speak of are as biased as those used for the global warming hoax. Facts of nature remain. First rule, it must be one male and one female to procreate a species. No exceptions. Fact two, animals who have a deformity, whether in a gene or birth defect, are shunned by the group and will not contribute to the gene pool. Make any argument you wish, will never change these facts.
            Gay unions are morally and naturally wrong.
            Finally, you should learn what a Christian is before attempting to assault them. The Constitution was written assuring that GOD GIVEN RIGHTS would not be infringed. If that doesn't state the status of the nation, nothing does. To remove God from our history, we would have to destroy the Supreme Court Building where our laws have been debated since inception. We have Moses with the Ten Commandments in the Supreme Court’s courtroom, Moses with two tablets on the East face, Moses on the West exterior facade, Ten Commandments on front bronze doors, Moses and Ten Commandments in Great Hall (8 times), Ten Commandments on wooden interior courtroom doors, Ten Commandments in frieze above The Chief Justice's chair. Quite obvious the commandments were held in high esteem when distributing our laws. Now some feel the need to denounce God at every opportunity in the attempt to discredit him. God did warn us about this.
            If you wish to discredit the fact that God exists and controls all things, it might help if you read and understand what you are attacking. God made it quite clear that he will send plagues upon the wicked. (i.e. AIDS) AIDS is known as the "queer disease". Seems it's mostly the gays that contract this disease. Only other ways is through blood transfers, but this chance became slight when gays were no longer allowed to donate, and IV drug use. This also became slight when drug users began using clean needles each time. AIDS is still a big factor in the gay "community". Logic and evidence counters your claim.
            How funny for you to confuse Christianity with religion. Again, learn of the subject you wish to castigate. As you said, 73% (although the number is higher) live as a Christian. This most definitely makes this a Christian nation. How some define their Christianity through religion is a moot point.
            And yet again you make an assumption without facts. This seems to be your biggest problem. You ARE aware that Jews are Christians that do not celebrate Christmas? Do you also understand that "celebrating" Christmas and Honoring the birth of Christ are two totally separate things? Obviously not.
            See, I do follow the commandments in the Bible. I especially follow Jeremiah 10:1-5 (KJV) at this time of year.
            When you stop assuming and follow the facts and truths, your life will become much easier.

    • To Justin,
      God does not approve of same sex marriage, he created a man and a woman and that is the only marriage God recognizes. Just because these dimwits politicians signs it into law and makes it legal for same sex marriages, does not mean that it is morally correct, homosexuality is a abomination to God, and it is disgusting, and not acceptable.

      • It is not acceptable to you, and I respect that you think that God does not approve of same sex marriage. I don't tend to agree with that because I think that people are born homosexual and if God created all beings, he surely created homosexuals too. Also, there are only a few parts of the bible which expressly condemn homosexuality and multitudes more which extoll the virtues of forgiveness and loving your enemy as your brother and so forth. So I mean, to hold an opinion is one thing. But what makes it the place of the human governments to regulate individual behavior in this particular way. I mean, should adultery be illegal as well? It is in fact, illegal in some countries :) I mean in Sodom an Gommorah, homosexuals were not only homosexuals but also rapists. In that case, sure the laws of man should step in, although don't forget that those in the city all received their punishment. I think a man loving another man in the privacy of his own home or holding hands in public is a little different. It doesn't have the same need of regulation under law.

  3. People of God should heed the words of Jesus when he said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". If gay marriage is against God, then let he who has no sin condemn it first.

Speak Your Mind

*