NY. Rainbows Gone Wild-Gay Marriage

https://i1.wp.com/www.getreligion.org/wp-content/photos/rainbow_altar.jpg

I don’t want to piss off anyone with my personal viewpoint on this issue.   Being a Libertarian I am not terribly troubled by most things gay.  I figure if people live their lives respectful of others around them, most people can get along no matter what their differences.

Yep, I live in Utopia.  Thing is though that you have these f**king whack-jobs who want to just keep pushing for more “rights” and such for themselves by remaking society, or certain aspects of society, in an image that they think will finally make things “fair” for them.  Guess what you victim mentality assholes, not everybody gives a rats ass about your gayness.  That’s right – your audience has changed while you weren’t looking.

A marriage is usually thought of as being  sanctioned by a Church.

A civil ceremony usually is not based on or connected in any way to any religion.  Typically performed by an officiant who is licensed by the state.

Traditional couples are allowed to be united in “civil ceremonies”.  Gay couples are allowed to be married in “civil ceremonies”.

So, we clearly have a lovely balance of equality there.

Why do some traditional couples choose civil ceremonies?  

Because they have no interest in being united by a religious figure.  They simply don’t feel the desire to profess in a way that binds them religiously as well as legally.

They feel that would signal their acceptance or participation/belief in a particular faith.  Or, they are just cheap and want to get through the process as quickly and inexpensively as possible.

And some are not eligible to be married under a particular churches rules.  As happened to me!  

Why do some gay couples so strongly desire the religious connotations that are implicit with a gay “marriage” rights law?

I personally think the primary problem with this marriage debate is that people aren’t differentiating between a religious/spiritual marriage and a civil marriage. That is largely the governments fault for taking on the word “marriage” in the first place.

And to open the door for Churches, who have the absolute religion based conviction  that marriage is between one man and one woman, and who are committed to the teachings of their faith(s), to be persecuted and sued if they refuse to perform a marriage ceremony?  Unacceptable!

I didn’t attempt to sue the Catholic Church for refusing to perform the marriage between myself and my husband (annulment issue).  No, instead we had a beautiful civil ceremony.

Not every gay couple even wants to be married, or cares about being married in something other than a civil union.

Make no mistake, “forcing” churches to perform gay marriages (it will happen)  will NOT be a “rights” thing.  It will be a devastating blow to the structure of religion.  

I have always believed that people have a right to “live who they are“.  Well, within the law and as long as no one else is hurt.  You know, live and let live.  

If gay “marriage” is passed, soon it will not be tolerated that some Churches opt out.  Churches will eventually be forced to perform these “marriages”.  The government will absolutely insert itself into the business of the Churches in the interest of perceived fairness.

This will surely follow if gay “marriage” laws are passed.

Unless you’re trying to have a gay marriage in the Muslim faith.  Good luck with that.  Yes, in fact, if these same gay people that have worked so hard to bring this about, had worked JUST AS DILIGENTLY to bring about real acceptance in the Muslim community, I guess I could believe it really is about the true issue of “marriage”.  Guess it’s just the Christians that are intolerant of gays and need to be bashed about and made to acquiesce huh?

Tell me how that is?

Advertisements

~ by ladysforest on June 17, 2011.

26 Responses to “NY. Rainbows Gone Wild-Gay Marriage”

  1. First, let me get something from before out of the way. Leo D is in total denial about the importance of the myriad of ways of that the Obama-fraud is criminally ineligible for POTUS. He is right about his pet nbC issue of course, but it is only one of many, many other equally important disqualifying factors that should put zero (or whatever his real name is) in prison or, more justly, in front of a firing squad. I have seen how you recently have tried to reason with Leo on this, but to little avail. You are right about Leo’s tunnel vision and I was wrong (but I still admire him greatly for being willing to put his own personal hide on the line to try to preserve our once great nation and the bedrock upon which it was founded, the rule of law).

    Now, on to gay marriage. You seem to have failed to recognize that state sanctioned marriage is not merely a private, two-party contract, but that it is in reality a contract between the marrying couple and the community in which they live. Gay pseudo-marriage (or the real normal kind) is not just about two people making a private commitment between themselves (which I heartily support). Today’s militant gay pseudo-marriage is all about using the point of a government gun to force me (and you, and all of our neighbors in the community) to artificially formally recognize a gay union as being equal and as important to the community as a normal heterosexual union.

    This “rainbow” agenda completely disregards the fact that only a heterosexual union is inherently capable of producing and rearing children of and by their biological mothers and fathers (and thereby giving them natural role models for repeating the process and, thus, most effectively preserving a self-sustaining civil society). It is in this most fundamental regard that homosexual unions are undeniably inferior to and different from heterosexual marriages.

    The community grants traditional marriage special benefits and recognition because only it is capable of sustaining the community in a way that uniquely serves its ongoing existence. Traditional marriage is undeniably the best framework for producing the next generation’s productive citizens. Neither gay unions nor single mothers can directly provide the role models needed to keep this process going.

    Society serves its own best interest by promoting traditional marriage. This key function simply does not exist for gay unions. Civil unions are more than enough to protect generic individual rights.

    • Fundamentally I do agree completely with you regarding traditional marriages and their importance in the community. I also agree that the contract is inclusive of the community. And I don’t for one minute feel that gays raising adopted children are in the same category as a traditional couple raising children. I imagine being told by your adopted child that they are straight might be very rough on some gay couples. 🙂

      I recall when civil union was the target for gays. They just wanted to be able to have “rights” such as, health insurance, home ownership, inheritance. OK, so they achieved that goal and now it’s (predictably) on to forcing this higher union through legislation. Next stop will be to force churches and clergy to “recognize” them and perform these ceremonies. Seems to me a goal isn’t acceptance, but rather “pay back” to the church and the heterosexual community. I WANT THEM TO BRING THAT SAME MESSAGE TO THE MUSLIM COMMUNITIES.

      Basically I don’t have a giant problem with gays being hitched through a civil ceremony, if that’s their bag. They MUST understand that they can’t legislate genuine acceptance. If I am told a gay couple is “married”, I catch myself thinking, “Ewwww”. Followed by, “Whatever”. See, I grew up with a hippy type mother, and so was accustomed to being around gay people from my youth. Even still, I’m not conditioned to it being my version of “normal”. I never encountered a gay couple, or individual for that matter, who comported themselves like straight persons. Don’t get me wrong, I have met lots of perfectly nice gay people, but they always go out of the way to act different for some reason. Like a kid playing dress-up that gets into character.

      Add to everything else – I am a Libertarian – and I HATE being forced into anything, or being PC. That is messing with my freedom, and that simply will not work for me.

      PS- I haven’t been trying to reason with LD. I know that Kittycat tried for a bit. I figured that boat sailed when I read some of the comments he left to his readers. He knows it won’t go before the courts JUST for nbC. There wouldn’t be time before the election anyway. But when you realize the huge amount (and growing) of other material that is piling up in addition to the nbC issue, well, all of that can not and should not be ignored.

  2. Wow! Miss Tickly has hit another home run with her latest blog post. It’s partially recycled, but is a must-read piece that wryly illustrates how the precedent of the coach Jones case should clearly give Orly (or any other attorney) clear standing in breaking through the criminal stonewalling at the Hawaii Department of Health.

  3. It will do no good to try to reason with LD. His mind is set and has been probably since he started this. He’s leaving out lots and lots of important things about Barky, though. He does have tunnel vision, yes. I don’t think that he understands about the announcements at all. Unless he’s studied them since.

    • I think he’s pixelated, LOL! It’s from the old movie “Arsenic and Old Lace”…..I LOVE that movie. But I do think Leo needs perspective.

      • Oh, I like that movie. Is that the one with Cary Grant and his two old aunts? It seems like they have old men buried in their basement. Really a funny movie.

  4. Ladysforest,

    Have you seen Bringing Up Baby with Katherine Hepburn and Cary Grant?

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0029947/

    When I first watched it, it took me about 30 minutes before I could stand Katherine’s screeching voice in this movie, but then it just got so funny. If you haven’t watched it, then you should.

  5. Basically I don’t have a giant problem with gays being hitched through a civil ceremony, if that’s their bag. They MUST understand that they can’t legislate genuine acceptance. If I am told a gay couple is “married”, I catch myself thinking, “Ewwww”. Followed by, “Whatever”. See, I grew up with a hippy type mother, and so was accustomed to being around gay people from my youth. Even still, I’m not conditioned to it being my version of “normal”. I never encountered a gay couple, or individual for that matter, who comported themselves like straight persons. Don’t get me wrong, I have met lots of perfectly nice gay people, but they always go out of the way to act different for some reason. Like a kid playing dress-up that gets into character.
    +1

  6. “Whatever!”…. exactly.
    I have been around many gay men and a few gay woman and what You say is true.
    In my experience the female gays are very often in need to tell everybody what their sexual preferences are. Strange.
    (with males it is often not needed because of the behaviour)
    There was this English teacher I had and she showed pictures of herself and a (pretty masculine) woman around. Barf!
    Generally I think everybody should do what they feel is right for them, but it always has to be a spectacle, I mean, I really don’t want to know unless we are friends.
    On the church marriage I would recommend the bible as a guide.

    • My hubby is a VERY devout Catholic – I hear chapter and verse about gays, and about the churchs position on marriage. Trust me!

      I think it has a bit to do with the way I was brought up. Southern Baptist churches in rural Virginia (at that time) never mentioned gays, not that I recall, so the only way I knew of homosexuality was because of my mother. She worked so hard to buck her upbringing, and the Hippy /buck conventional society movement gave her a way I guess. Gays were really not openly discussed (publicly) at all when I was a kid, and as “normal” as my mother presented the whole issue, it still struck me as “yucky”.

      Also, if gays think that these crazy “parades” where they act so over the top whacko are going to help straight people be more accepting, they are riding on the wrong float! I just don’t get the thinking behind that stuff.

      I really do think that most of the push to this “Gay Marriage” crap is to attack the Christian religion.

  7. I have just held off posting this. Well, first off, what I’m saying is not meant to condemn anyone. By what the Scriptures state, we only have responsibility for our own salvation anyway. We’re all told to “choose” by Yahweh on which road to travel. It’s basically that we will choose either life or death. And in the OT and NT, it’s pointed out things to practice in ourselves that we want to become a part of us in the resurrection, then things that we shouldn’t practice if we wish to gain “life.” I’m not talking about the life now. I’m talking about after the resurrections. There are two resurrections. I’ll be in the second one, which is the case of most of mankind.

    Anyway, look in Acts. 15:1, a conversation is happening about the CUSTOM of Moses, which it’s about fleshly circumcision, and is a work of the Torah. It’s a work, not an eternal commandment.

    Anyway, here it states: Act 15:20 but we should write a letter to them to abstain from the pollution of idols and from sexual immorality and from what has been strangled and from blood.

    The reference to pollution of idols has to do with pagan festivals, which is not the time to talk about this now. Most people simply do not want to know or understand that. Anyway that which is strangled is what you’re going to eat, it’s a no-no because it has the blood in it, and the other reference so actually to drinking or eating blood. Actually drinking blood was a pagan practice back then, and it’s probably the same today because things never do change. It also applies to the same thing that goes along with a strangled animal. It doesn’t have to do with receiving blood in your veins to save a life. When you get a transfusion, it’s not something that you put into your mouth and digest. It is there to save your life, so this is where some people go off the deep end and not understanding that it has to do with what a person is eating, drinking. For example, blood sausage is popular in many places, so that’s an example. Or some people will eat that steak Tar-Tar, whatever the name is, that is raw meat. Nasty! It will cause illnesses too.

    Anyway, the part about homosexuals, I’m getting to it. That place is many times translated as “fornication” in many Bible translations. That is totally incorrect, and it’s a misunderstanding of the Greek term “porneia.” Porneia means sexual immorality, sexual misconduct, sexual crimes. There is a list supplied for us in the Bible, which one of my Bible software has, and is kind enough to point out. It’s not just homosexuality, BTW. However, homosexual activity is dangerous if one wishes to choose life.

    Here’s the definition from Thayer’s dictionary for the Greek word “porneia.”

    porneia
    Thayer Definition:
    1) illicit sexual intercourse
    1a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
    1b) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
    1c) sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mar_10:11,Mar_10:12
    2) metaphorically the worship of idols
    2a) of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols

    Well, actually we have a literal and a figurative definition. It even also means idolatry and eating idol sacrifices at idol festivals.

    Here’s what I think. I can’t tell someone how to live their life, but if I had a good friend who practiced homosexuality or having sex with animals (so terribly gross), then I would probably try to tell them that they should study this and move away from that lifestyle.

    And here’s one of the kickers of this. Many gays have been told that they are born that way. It’s a total and absolute lie. How many babies have you seen that are gay? I bet none, and do they remember when they were babies that they were born that way? I bet not. But I do know from having a good friend that has a son who says that he’s been born that way, that when he was a little toddler, he was molested. So as a little tike, he was acting out, etc. Many of them have no fathers, which was his case, to move him away from that activity, and/or they have overbearing mothers that just didn’t move them away from that.

    Most kids are really asexual. They are not interested in it at all. They are just little kids who have nothing on their minds but playing and learning, and when they have a good father figure, a good mother, a good family life, it will lead them in the right direction. And kids learn by observation. If they have a decent father and mother, most of the time they will not be homosexual. If they show tendencies early on, maybe they have idenity confusion that needs to be straightened out and led in the right direction.

    Without going into details, our country will not survive unless you have people moving from this lifestyle. It has happened to other nations in the past because of their perversions, and it will happen to us too. Sexual perversions will not be allowed to go on very long. Allowing them to will only promote more worse sexual perversions, as is the case today. For example, back 20 years ago do you remember gay sex and whatnot being allowed in the streets at gay fests? I don’t. So it will only get worse. You allow one perversion it, the rest is sure to follow. How can you keep a woman from marrying several men at once, or men marrying many women at once and men also, or how can you keep someone from marrying children or their animals? See what I’m saying? I don’t think that we could imagine how bad it will get, and I don’t want to either.

    • OMG! I saw pics on a blog of that San Fran gay fest where RIGHT IN PUBLIC these freaks were doing different sex acts. Right in front of children, everyone! I wanted to vomit. It wasn’t just an isolated incident, the blogger posted a bunch of pics – it was CALIGULA land. It was so disgusting that even if you had no beef with gays before – you would if you had seen that shit. Some of them were going around nude except for shoes. This is an expression of what precisely? That isn’t just people who “were born” attracted to the same sex. It was nothing other than an excuse to have an orgy in public. And any TAXPAYERS that might have been disgusted and mortified had to what, stay in their homes, or go out of town until the big orgy was over?

      Now we have the men with the dolls too. And the grown men who insist that little boys are looking to hook up with them.

      Seriously, I would LOVE to see these people go around some mosques with their street orgies, etc., and I would be very interested in the outcome of that. No, the gays know that the dems will work for them against Christians, but the gays know that the Dems would never even try to intervene with the muslims. Ever. Have you ever heard of a lawsuit filed by a gay against a muslim for perceived homophobia? No? Don’t think you ever will either. And we ALL know the muslim position towards gays.

      • Yes, I know, those pictures were beyond disgusting. I remember when WND did a piece on it, and had the place that had the pictures. They were sick. That whole group is so messed up.

        • I guess there is a segment that is not all nasty like those people – but they are truly being defined more and more by that side of that culture.

          If they truly desire to be accepted as “the same but different”, these disgusting and ghastly public orgies and the bizarre parades that make them all into a terrible caricature of the thing they claim to in fact be, well – it ain’t working. They are defecating on themselves, both figuratively and literally.

  8. I don’t want to downplay what these people are feeling and how important it is to them to have these laws but I really don’t think it will get any attention with everything else that is going on. People are too focused on the big issues and most don’t see it as a big issue. One can respect people for what they want in their lives but it is another thing for anyone to actually understand what gays are feeling. I heard a really great argument for marriage from a priest and if anyone heard it you would know the rational for not wanting gay marriage.

    • Do you have a link for that tdr?

      • No…it was an interview on Fox news about two years ago. It was amazing but I will try to find something similar. He was a Catholic priest and the argument was not hateful…it was a definition of what marraige is and why it is between man and woman.

  9. Ladysforest,

    You are correct, it may not be all of them. However, this seems to be something huge in their circle that many of them go to. Look, any kind of an orgy is nasty as can be, but how many men and women do you see in public together at a carnival-type thing that are having sex in the streets where others can watch? But in this particular crowd, we do see that happening from the photos of people who have gone to investigate it. Had to be sick for them too. I read somewhere that many of them did get nauseated from it.

    This is for tdr:

    Tdr, you must understand something, at least I wish that you would, I do not “hate” the gays at all. It’s just a crappy way to live one’s life. It is a perversion, BTW, plain and simple. We cannot change that. It’s not meant for humankind to be that way at all. Most of them in that lifestyle are on drugs, very unhappy people. And I don’t know why unless it’s because it is a perversion. Maybe something in the back of their minds tell them that it’s not a good way to live.

    I have a good friend whose son is gay. I still talk to the man and I’m civil, but he does know how I feel about gay lifestyles for the simple reason is that I’m sure his mother has told him. His mother, my friend, has asked me what I think, and I said, what do the Scriptures say? Well, she full and well knows what they say, and it says to repent from that lifestyle. If you don’t think that you can be attracted to a woman and get married, at least be a nonpracticing homosexual. And she knows that I’m not being judgmental about it. I’m just stating it how it is. But she feels guilty because he is that way. He was molested as a young toddler, so she blames herself for allowing that to happen from a member of her own family. Throughout the years, he’s stolen from her while on crack, he’s tried to abuse her, both mental and physical, tried to commit suicide several times, and is now mentally ill and living with a man who’s an alcoholic. His life is the pits.

    So instead of tiptoeing around about it and being a wuss, I’ll just state how it is. A person needs to change from this lifestyle. Yeah, there are nice “gay” folks, and there are gay folks not quite living his lifestyle on drugs, but there are a whole lot of them that do live in that manner or in the manner of going to gay bars, gay bath houses, and those fests. That lifestyle will not help their future hopes of salvation. Why? You become what you practice. It’s not that practice makes perfect; it’s that practice makes permanent. That’s why the Scriptures keep talking about those to “practice” sin. And the Bible names sins, I don’t. It has the authority to name them.

    If you ever hear a gay person who has repented from that lifestyle, they will tell you that it’s a life of hell and mental torture. I’m not making it up like the media does. There are those who found out that they were brainwashed by the lie of them being born that way and change their life.

  10. Here is one explanation on why same sex marriage should not be legalized. It isn’t the one I heard previously,but it makes some good points with biblical references:

    Similarly a video on why God instituded marriage:

    http://www.catholic.org/video/?v=626

    There’s alot to think about. Some mormons still practice poligamy, also acceptable for muslims. You can make the argument that those groups should expect equal treatment under the law and if you don’t, you are intolerant. Polygamy was practiced by the early Jews and included in the Bible. It would be curious to determine at what point this practice changed and why. It seems to have been more societal than religious as God made Adam and gave him Eve, not also Mary, Elizabeth, etc. Curious, I search for poligamy at the http://www.catholic.org site and found the following which explains the whole issue in a nutshell:

    http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=1010

    Her is one excerpt but it is worth reading the entire discussion:

    Arcanum
    An Encyclical Letter on Christian marriage, issued 10 February, 1880, by Leo XIII. Its scope is to show that, since family life is the germ of society, and marriage is the basis of family life, the healthy condition of civil no less than of religious society depends on the inviolability of the marriage contract. The argument of the Encyclical runs as follows: The mission of Christ was to restore man in the supernatural order. That should benefit man also in the natural order; first, the individual ; and then, as a consequence, human society. Having laid down this principle, the Encyclical deals with Christian marriage which sanctifies the family, i.e. the unit of society. The marriage contract, Divinely instituted, had from the beginning two properties: unity and indissolubility. Through human weakness and wilfulness it was corrupted in the course of time ; polygamy destroyed its unity, and divorce its indissolubility. Christ restored the original idea of human marriage, and to sanctify more thoroughly this institution He raised the marriage contract to the dignity of a sacrament. Mutual rights and duties were secured to husband and wife; mutual rights and duties between parents and children were also asserted: to the former, authority to govern and the duty of training; to the latter, the right to parental care and the duty of reverence.

    • I tell you I am DISGUSTED with the gutless bastards that passed this crap. I just am.

      • LF,

        The most comfort I have right now is knowing God is in control of everything. These are tough times.

    • I know this is old, but polygamy was practiced before there were the Jews. As the name “Jews” is a shortened name for the people who came out of Babylon because they had been exiled there. Then the small remnant came back to the land of Judaea, which the nations starting calling them Yudi, shortened for Judah (Yahudah). Most of them were just from one tribe of the House of Israel, meaning Yahudah (Judah).

      But early on Yahweh allowed the marriage of more than one woman. However, this led to family problems, jealousies and the like, and also to mention the fact that the husband had to love them all. Like in Jacob Israel’s case, he was totally in love with Rachel, but he was deceived into marrying Leah (Rachel’s sister), then after 7 years, I think it was, he married Rachel.

      BTW, Jacob Israel was not a Jew. However, the tribes of Israel came through his line, and it was Judah, which later was called “Jews” many centuries afterward, with those who went to Babylon and who had joined with that small remnant and was joined to them, which was some of Benjamin, the priestly tribe of Levi.

      The House of Israel (the majority, including the majority of Judah), had never been referred to as Jews. They are the ones who went into captivity with Assyria.

      The best way is one husband and wife. Polygamy is basically against the law of the land, so it’s a no-no in that regard. Well, first off, it was meant to be that a husband had only one wife, not several.

      So if you study what happened in history scripturally, you’ll see that it was not the best way to have many wives. I mean, look at Solomon, but some of his many were political-type situations. It caused problems in families. The best if one wife to a husband.

      • How about a woman having multi-hubbys? That way you are sure to have the trash taken out and the yard mowed – maybe even have the Christmas lights down before spring. When one pissed you off you could sic the others on him!!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: