Gay Marriage and Homophobes!
by Steven CrowderA lot of Republicans may feel that we’d be best-served to avoid this issue altogether. As a Conservative, however, I feel compelled to explain why many of us out there are opposed to the currently proposed same-sex marriage bills and not to civil unions. Plus, it’s not everyday that I get to put on a Leprechaun costume!
Note: No tasteless holiday parades were actually performed during the making of this video.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
268 Comments
Speaking as an apparently "self-loathing" gay guy, NO. I don't approve of or support gay marriage. Civil unions, yes. What I find amusing is that just a few short years ago, these self-proclaimed "gay activists" heaped scorn and derision on the whole concept and institution of marriage. Now all of a sudden, they just HAVE TO be able to get married….what a bunch of asshats.
I don't think the State should be in the marriage game in the first place – let churches marry who they want, but the government should not deny civil unions to whatever a) adult and b) couples who want to get married.
lolz, too funny.
imo, this shouldn't even be an issue. Let the states pass laws that reflect what the people living in state prefer. You know, having a "representative government" that responded to the people they governed, with each state being able to tailor their laws to their residents, thereby allowing people to enact change as things change or let them move to a state that more reflects their beliefs and such.
Anyone remember that happening here? It used to be popular in this country…
Marriage by definition includes a fundemental biological component. Two guys or two gals can't , er…hmmm, dammit they can't synthesize that, no matter what they say…
….watch the incrementalism in play here…how does "Lance" eat the elephant? Not in one bite…he takes smaller bites…
Legalizing gay marriage is simply an attempt by atheist liberals to undermine our Judeo Christian heritage and control the natural and proper family structure. It's really that simple. Funny vid BTW.
Nice strawmen you got there, Steve.
[...] the original post here: Gay Marriage and Homophobes! This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
That was funny! Everything short of marriage, is cool with me.
This comment doesn't strike you as a bit homophobic? You seem to be AFRAID that mainstream acceptance of homosexual relationships will lead to all manner of perversions.
I knew I was a self-loathing queer conservative the year I left a WeHo Shame Parade after witnessing a giant penis squirting fake (at least I hope it was) semen into the cheering crowd.
Haven't attended one since.
Civil Unions Yes, Marriage No.
HATER!
Let's do lunch! ….LOL ; D
Ding! Ding! Ding!…..we have a winner!
I meant as a national issue, i.e. marriage amendment or it being "dealt with" at a national level either way. Should've clarified that so you wouldn't have had to waste such biting satire. Nice job on taking what I stated to be my own opinion and extrapolating it to an absurd level instead of responding with a differing opinion.
As it is, I feel there are more important issues than homosexual issues to be discussed or dealt with at the national level. Such as the potential socialization of the healthcare industry, for instance. Or maybe those Islamic terrorists who would like to kill us. But, hey, that's just me.
Individualist said-
"The Ancient Roman culture was no stranger to homosexual behavior however it never expressed as same sex unions. The Roman marriage was always a man and a women. The Romans would never think of sex with one gender only in the way we do today."
Actually same sex marriage was recognized in civil law in the Roman Empire until it (The Empire) was converted to Christianity in the 3rd century by the Emperor. This was neither the first, nor the last, time it was a recognized part of a society.
I am personally ambivalent towards gay marriage. If it happens, fine. If it doesn't, also fine. I am neither gay, Christian, nor do I have any intent to marry so I can't imagine an issue that would effect me less. Though I do have to admit it is sometimes funny watching people from both sides behave as if the fate of society hangs in the balance. But usually it's just annoying.
Allow it, don't allow it, just pick one already and let's all move on.
While I'm in favor of homosexual civil unions, there is an underlying problem involving many deeply religious groups who won't even consider allowing gay civil unions to commence. That is because they believe that civil unions are actually counterfeit marriages, and are not worthy of legal status. It appears that some of these groups will not be happy about any arrangement no matter how far divided it is from any religious institution.
It seems to me that marriage is a fundamentally religious institution. This is one area where I think there should definitely be separation of church and state. Let the government get completely out of the marriage business and by out of the marriage business I mean stop assigning any legal aspects to marriage. Reserve those for civil unions which both hetero- and homosexual couples can enter into. Leave marriages to the church so that individual churches can define what they consider marriage and if couples want to enjoy the legal benefits that currently attach to marriage, they can get a civil union at the same time.
Well according to the History Channel's recent show on Sex and Roman Society basing a lot of what they were saying on studies of Pompey they stated that the idea that one would only have sex with one gender and not another was something completely foreign inconcept to them. Marraige in ancient times was not about love as we think today. It was almost always arranged and was primarily about begetting of children.
I am unsure where your point about civil law comes in but I imagine that it was not written in the law juse not disallowed. A wealthy Patrician probably could have decided to do what he like including marrying his horse if he liked. PEdophilia was also not forbidden. They had a different mindset and not to be admired in many ways.
I was speaking more to the history channels meme that the attitude that one would only have sex with another of a certain gender would somehow seem silly to a Roman.
I remember when marriage became uncool. I had Liberal friends who would literally make fun of you if you wanted to get married. They'd talk about how unnatural it was to try to settle down with one partner, and it was just our bogus religious brainwashing that was convincing us to do it.
I wonder if that means I can call gay marriage advocates "brainwashed" now?
i support civil unions, but not marriage. part of my opposition is what Richard described above.
what i have a problem with is that the victimhood card is coming into play more and more.
the idea that gay marriage is a civil right, and that at some point churches will be forced to perform said marriages, even if it goes against the tenets of that church, craps on the rights of that particular church to conduct their business as they see fit. as an added bonus this will also put the long arm of the government into something they have no need or right to be in.
is there a good answer to the question? no, i don't believe there is. what there is is an chance for greater understanding between the sides, if the disscusion can be kept civil.
for me at least, what i have read here at big hollywood has given me a lot of hope towards that end. respectful and honest, without the usual rancor i've seen elsewhere on both sides.
"hohohohoho,merry christmas! here's mah wang!!" omg. best. line. ever.
check me off for a civil union. no marriage. also check me off for santa keeping it in his pants.
I had a thoughtful, intelligent comment until I saw Santa.
If your source is a book by John Boswell Christianity, Tolerance and Society then I believe he would dispute part of what you are saying.
According to the chat room comments I read supposedly he states the church did not outlaw gay relationships until the 12th century. Honestly though it seems this book is written by someone with a axes to grind. supposedly he recognises that Cicero "considered" the relationship of a nephew with a man a marraige and states Nero married two men. I believe Nero did have a wife so on that statement I am confused,
The thing I find strange is back then the women in a marraige was quite literally property. They did not have feminism or suffrage. So how did you define who was whose property in a "gay" marraige. There was homosexuality in Rome that is sure but it seems not exclusively so. I don't know.
I felt I was clear, but I'll be more clear. Same sex unions were a part of the civil code in the Roman Empire, just as male/female marriage is a part of the law today in the United States. It was of course less common than male/female unions, but had the same legal standing. And as I mentioned, it was neither the first nor the last time for it. As to gay marriage eliminating gays from the gene pool, that's not really a concern.
Assuming for the sake of argument that homosexuality is genetically derived (I've heard of the thesis, but haven't studied it enough to have an opinion) just because you have a genetic trait does not mean that trait will be expressed. Every human being's genetic code has information from numerous ancestors, but only some of that information is used in designing any particular individual. Example: Say you have ancestors who are tall, medium height, and short. That means your genetic code has the information for all of those, but rather obviously you can't be all three. Based on numerous factors you end up one of them, say it's tall. The information for the other two is still there however. Say you marry a tall woman (I'm assuming you're a man, if not reverse it) you would expect to have tall children. But since that information is still in you're genetic code, they could be short. (Yes there's a lot more to it than that, I'm simplifying for the sake of brevity and clarity.
So even if gays stop breeding entirely, (which there's no reason to believe they will, there are sperm banks and surrogate mothers after all) there will still be people who have the "gay" gene, but who are not gay themselves because that trait hasn't been expressed in their case. Example: There are cases of identical twins (who thus have the same genetic code) where one is straight and the other gay.
As to Roman sexual identity, it was certainly less rigid than ours in the modern day. (Oh stop laughing! It was the word that fit best.) But just as there are bisexuals today, there were monosexuals then.
As to propagating the species, there are more than six billion people in the world. Only about two-four percent of them are gay. Whatever happens with gay marriage, will not stop the species from propagating.
According to Crowder stats though it appears that if we decided to ahve civil unions for gay people and vote that is it would pass 57 to 38% I think. I am sure of the 57% sure not the second number but it was lower than 50%.
Perhaps if we used a different term. We could call them Bondings and refer to the participants as BondMates. This to my mind sound nicer than civil union or significant other which have too much of an academic quality.
The thing I find ironic is that Bush early in his first term came out for Civil Unions when the Massachutsetts court case occured. The Gay community rejected that. They should have taken what was offered then.
"But just as there are bisexuals today, there were monosexuals then."
I am not so sure that what you are terming as monosexuality exists as exclusively as you think it is. I think there is probably a genetic as well as an environmental element since animals that express this gene seem to be as likely one way as the other.
Genes can be regressive however if I take a bloodline of individuals and every time there is a short person I kill them before they can mate eventually the short gene will cease to exist. Its simple probablity.
I am not sure where you get this"civil code" meme but it is problematic in regard to marraige at that time. A woman married to a man did not have rights. She was property. How would a gay relationship perceive this and how could a woman who was property of her father marry another woman. It seems to go against the grain of the time.
My point is that the Romans themselves did not seem to think that one would choose only one sex. This according to the history channel was the point.
As to the propigation of the species it is no relavant the numbers of humans. The point is how does socieity ensure that children are raised. We do this through marraige. A child of a woman is considered to be her husbands even if it is not. Why because he is the one who is married to her and thus can claim sexual rights. This is why marraige developed to name a mother and father to a child. The numbers of people on the planet does not address my point when a gay man fathers a child. I know today with a 50% divorce rate it does not dawn on people but the children are what are supposed to come first. If a civil union and a marraige are the same thing then they are exclusive and the gay man to do the right thing must abandon his partner. I say they are different and he does not, can marry the woman and take care of the child with her.
I'm still laughing ..oh my goodness….I just adore the writers here at this internet establishment and enjoy their wry and witty takes on life, liberty, and the pusuit of happiness…still laughing…Thank you Steven!
But didn't Collyforniah pass Prop 8, and the libbies and gay folks had a hissy fit and continue to persecute anyone they feel that won't fight back? It doesn't matter what the vote is, the libbies won't accept it unless it fits their agenda.
"HOW DOES A NAKED GAY DUDE WEARING BODY GLITTER MAKE ANYONE PROUD"….. LOLOLOLOHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ….. HYSTERICAL!!!!!
I know!
Never thought I'd see that day when gays would be accessorizing themselves with kids and demanding marriage.
So bourgeois ; )
Good point Steven, most parades involve high school marching bands, community floats, clowns, firetrucks, and children having fun. Gay pride parades just seem to showcase a whole bunch of dudes who would be more than happy to play hide the hot dog with any other dude in the parade. If anyone wants to call me homophobic for not giving a tinkers damn that same sex couples want to be treated the same as hetero couples so be it. I might call myself a dog breeder by mating males with males and females with females but we all know I would be full of crap.
Why do idiots continually say "the government should not be in the business of marriage." WHY do you think the government has ALWAYS been involved in the business in every civilization? Maybe because entire legal systems of countries are dependent on a nuclear family?
For anyone who supports civil unions and not homosexual marriages, quit being dishonest and just admit what is the obvious.
Well what is the obvious? Why don't you tell us since none of us apparently know.
I completely agree with you. Frankly, I think that is the best compromise we are ever going to come to. B/c honestly if civil unions have the same legal rights as marriages, and marriages are looked upon in a religious way then we should leave "marriages" to churches and other religious institutions and give everyone "civil unions".
Though I am 99% conservative, I really do not have a problem with gays wanting to have some kind of permanent relationship that is legally recognized, whatever they want to call it. Let's face it, most of the gays that will do it are the kind that are more monogamous and probably more otherwise "Traditional" than you think. Sure, there are some that just want to do it to thumb their noses, but most actually have loving relationships and want a family, etc.
I suspect you will be accused very shortly of "homophobia" because you have thought about marriage and come to a conclusion different than the loudest opinion available today. For shame — thinking! What were you thinking? ;o/
The obvious is that persons of the same sex cannot marry. It is physically impossible to consummate the marriage and breed.
Er. Right?
Well that sounds correct to me.
Hey Biscuits, is that what you are trying to get at?
No, no, no……the answer is you're a bigot.
I haven't seen hairy thighs like that since the Michigan Womyn's Festival.
*bah-dum ching!*
I support giving gay couples a state recognized union where they can have the same rights heterosexuals have to designate next of kin, inheritors etc. I want such a union to not be able to be used to force private institutions to change their practices (ie Catholic groups forced to adopt to gay couples) but frankly if you want to see less gay parades get them married and allow the civilizing influence commence.
Republicans should introduce another Civil Union bill just to let the Democrats stick it to gays agains by voting it down.
I'm not homophobic but I'm sure scared of Leprechauns after watching that clip! It's going to take a whole lot of beer to get that image out of my mind. : )
"Merry Christmas, here's my wang!"
That's a keeper.
Amen brother. This whole marriage debate is exactly why we have separation of church and state everywhere besides marriage.
Call me homophobic if you want, but I will never accept gay marriage. It is not natural and should not be allowed to happen. And I do have several gay people in my family and as friends that I absolutely love. Both family members are in committed relationships and have been for years. Let them live together if they want, just don't insist on marriage. If that is homophobic, so be it. I can live with it.
"Maybe because entire legal systems of countries are dependent on a nuclear family?"
You sure about that.
Care to back any of that up with a footnote or two.
Coming soon as a new ABC series. I can't wait!
Mainly because it has Al Bundy and virtually everything else looks even more lame.
Well, there was the Roman Emperor Elagabalus who married several of his favorite chariot drivers. He once inquired throughout the Empire to find himself a medical professional who could give him a vagina. Some people like to call him history's first recorded transsexual.
Let's try this one more time. I'm trying to be clear, but you seem to not understand. First the civil code I'm speaking of is not a meme, but rather a historical fact. I got it from reading different histories of Rome. The History Channel is fine, as far as it goes, but if you really want to learn history; pick up a book. As to the word meme, to quote The Princess Bride, "I don't think that word means what you think it means."
As to what I'm calling monosexual, by that I simply mean someone who is attracted to one sex. Both homo- and heterosexuals are monosexual because they're both only attracted to one sex. With heteros it's the opposite, with homo's it's the same, but still just one sex, whereas bisexuals are attracted to both. And I didn't say it was exclusive, just the opposite, I said both exist.
As to genetics, the point you're missing is that if indeed there is a "gay" gene, gays are not the only ones who have it. As I mentioned previously there are multiple cases of identical twins where one is gay and the other straight. They both have the hypothetical gay gene, but for whatever reason it did not express in the heterosexual twin. So say the gay twin never procreates, (which as I also mentioned is far from certain since there are sperm banks and surrogate mothers available) but the heterosexual twin does, then he will pass on the gay gene. Therefore gays will not die out, whether they breed or not. I used identical twins because there it's certain they would share the gene, but any sibling would share a great deal of DNA and would have a high probability of passing it on to their offspring.
As to your contention that the number of humans is irrelevant to the propagation of the species, I'm sorry, but that's blatantly absurd. All propagate means in this context is for a species to multiply, obviously the more numbers you have the more said species is going to multiply. You seem to think it has something to do with how well a species raises it's offspring, it doesn't. So long as offspring are produced, and survive long enough to produce their own offspring, then the species is propagating.
No matter how lousy they are as parents.
So unless it's your contention that people are going to stop breeding if gay marriage is passed, then it will have no effect on the propagation of the species.
Which is of course not enough to say whether it would be a positive or negative change for society to legalize it. Personally I don't think it will have a major effect either way.
Whoa now, we know what that "separation" was originally meant to be and what the liberals have twisted it into. Are you saying the liberals have it right?
In the really old days, when things got too restrictive people would move on out to the territories for their freedom.
You know, Canada and Mexico have a lot of land that's hardly used, if at all. Think they'd miss it?
No, I am not saying the liberals have it right.
What I am saying is that when you mix the church (marriage) and state, it causes problems.
Yes because obviously if states vote on the issue directly then there is no need for anyone to discuss or think about the issue and determine like what they think should be done in their states. When they say it is a states rights issue they mean that aliens from other planets will decide and phone in the results cause no one ever votes on anything for the states I mean dude you'd have to spend like a whole 3-4 extra minutes in the voting booth punching out chads and like how you gonna know who the heck is running for state senate or something like you'd have to read a newspaper or something. I mean like if they want us to vote at the local level they should at least run ads on the cartoon channel where people will see it……. Oh Wait…………………….
The state should not be involved in marriage, and weddings should be preformed in Churches under their doctrine. The state should only record and enforce contracts between two individuals.
I find the following things about homosexuality interesting.
According to a Popular Science magazine article I read a gene has been identified in animals tied to sexuality. If they have this gene then they are as likely to express their sexuality as hetero as homosexual. Without this gene the animal always expresses heterosexuality.
The Ancient Roman culture was no stranger to homosexual behavior however it never expressed as same sex unions. The Roman marraige was always a man and a women. The Romans would never think of sex with one gender only in the way we do today.
It is possible that what we think of as "homosexual" is as much due to a cultural element within the Gay and Mainstream cultures today as it is realy an inner drive to only be attracted to one sex. If people had genes that made them homosexual how is it such genes would survive from generation to generation in the gene pool. Not sure.
Hey, I think I know what you are trying to say, but you're dredging up "separation" just as the liberals do. You can find a better basis to argue from than that. Yes, you. You write good stuff.
"Marriage" when recognized by the state is an acknowledgment of contractual obligations and financial ties. The state does not and should not recognize any spiritual significance attached to the union, and indeed since its inception "marriage" may have no such significance at all. So make it official, the legal aspects of marriage will now be called a civil union. If you wish to make a public affirmation that the union is more than that, fine, when officiated by a religion they can call it a marriage and that religion gets to decide who they will affirm.
Of course, this will still lead to "gay marriage" since once "marriage" becomes a label that is attached to a civil union there will be those willing to supply the labels. Thus if you really want to stop gay marriage, you cannot separate out the legal stuff. The best you can do is have a strong authority that determines what a marriage is and what a civil union is (or will be). Which, sadly, must be the state.
The reason gays have such a raunchy out there parade is because for centuries they had to hide their sexuality or face persecution or, in some cases, even prison. So their outragious parade is a big F you to everyone who doesn't agree with their lifestyle and a message that it's never going back to the way it used to be.
Swedish lesbians suck sperm banks dry
Fun reading. Within you will find something else to worry about and check if they slipped it in to ObamaCare.
It is my conceit that if Gay Marraige is enacted that you will eventually see Gay people removed from the gene pool. For this reason I am against it. Marraige is about children and gays cannot have children in homosexual only relationships. Many of them do not engage this way. I knew someone whose father was gay and was an acoholic. To assume a gay person with a life time partner cannot have a marraige to a woman he has fathered a child with by law is what you are saying when you equate civil unions with marraige. The puprose of marraige is to ensure each child knows their biological mother and father and allows for them to be raised by them. This is the important thing. I think the debate is couched in rhetoric and hyperbole that keeps anyone from even exploring these issues. To my mind these issues, issues of propagation of the species are the only ones that actually are important.
I wouldn't exactly call what I experience as "homophobia". I'm not scared of homosexuals. They aren't freaks or monsters. I don't think they will bite my neck and with the coming of the new moon I will suddenly be a fan of musical theater.
That said, they are, to me at least…."off". Odd. Askew. Out of phase. Bent. I'm not sure it these are the best choice of words but they fit. Let me give you some examples of "off": Talking to someone with a "wall eye" (what the hell is he looking at?!!). Someone giving a speech with a boogie hanging from their nose. A kid flying a kite at night. You know. OFF.
All kidding aside, homosexuals do make me uncomfortable. The idea of two dudes making out gives me the heebie-jeebies. As does, for that matter, the idea of a girl having relations with a great dane. It's not a matter of "homophobia". Its simply a reaction to a set of circumstances that is foreign to me and my personal beliefs and experiences.
But, to be fair, I feel that I need to adjust my way of thinking. So, as a gesture to my "off" friends out there, I will try to put my "uncomfortableness" aside. Where's my kite?
"'hohohoho, Merry Christmas! Here's mah wag!!' omg. best. line. ever."
Agreed.
As a heterosexual women, I have nor problem with Gay marriage. The option of individual choice of marriage and/or Civil union shoudl be there. Religion and State do not mix. Gays should have the same rights as a couple in marriage. This applies to hetero sexual couples who do not want to get married for whatever reason.
I know of at least one large union, whose healthcare coverage covers partner of a gay employee but not the live in partner of a heterosexual employee.
I don't want to see gay men making out in public anymore or anyless than I want to see heterosexual couples make out.
Could it be that Elton John does not support gay marriage, because he is afraid he might have to shell out more money in the event of a divorce, than he would have to in a civil union.
There is no right to marriage. To say there is such a right places obligations on other people:
1) the person you wed, or at least propose to
2) the person who performs the ceremony
Following reference 1, if marriage was a right I could go up to any person and say "Marry Me." If they said no I could sue them for infringing on my right to marriage.
Following reference 2, we… Crowder pointed that one out. Good job.
Honestly. gay marriage' has never been about getting married. Why would people who are living in sin expect a church to condone their activity and wed them in the eyes of God?
No, this whole flap is all about (drumroll) government benefits. The government in its incredible wisdom decided to merge inheritance, visitation, and taxation benefits to marriage licenses. At the time I suppose it made sense, but we need to revise it. Turn them into Union licenses and force people to apply for them whether they were married, bound by commonlaw, justice of the peace, civil union, you name it.
Or alternatively, just get rid of them. The wailing and gnashing of teeth from the far-left gay crowd would be worth it.
Rather than respond in any responsible way, I would just like to comment on how small the man's shamrock is.
Truly, if you are going to cover Mr. Fella with fig leaf, make it a big one.
Hey Rip, profound thought there. I never thought of it that way and you're right, marriage is a religious thing. If you want to be married you go to your preferred church and do that. The church has the right to say yay or nay. If you want the legal thing, you go to the courthouse and anyone who wants to go to the courthouse should be able to do so. Never thought of separation of church and state quite like that before; never "realized" that marriage was a religious thing. Hmmmm. I had always supported marriage for all people before and didn't understand why (what I perceived as the lesser form) legal union, was the only offering in some states. Thanks for the light bulb.
Steven, once again both funny and poignant.
The basic problem with legal marriage, or any doppelganger, for any combination other than one man and one woman is reproduction. The rational for marriage is children, not romantic love.
Pair-bonded couples with children (a family) predate civilization, and are the basis for society. Over time civilization built up around the family and formalized marriage in recognition of its essential function. All changes undermining marriage and the family have undermined society as a whole.
Most automatic benefits of marriage (excluding reproductive and custody issues) can be obtained by other than married couples by other legal instruments (i.e. wills and trusts, living wills, limited powers of attorney, etc.). Those who truly wish these legal protections may enter into them at any time, if that is what they really seek. However, if what they want is societal recognition of their lifestyle, perhaps they should seek counseling…
Very funny Crowder! Nice Shamrock…
Great! Then I say next Easter Heteros celebrate their heterosexuality by dry humping eachother on floats down Haight Ashbury! Yay! How classy…
I'm sorry but you make Gays sound like immature babies getting back at mommy and daddy. Is that what you are trying to say?
Great! Then I say next Easter Heteros celebrate their heterosexuality out in the open by dry humping eachother on floats down Haight Ashbury! Yay! How classy…
I'm sorry but you make Gays sound like immature babies getting back at mommy and daddy. Is that what you are trying to say?
I am offically insulted by Crowder….
Only we in the Philly area are allowed to Boo Santa. YOU STOLE THIS FROM US YOU RACIST JERK!!
In all seriousness I thought a lot about this about 10 years ago trying to determine how I should think as an American, a Conservative and a Christian. The passage about "love the sinner, hate the sin" kept coming to mind and led me to be comfortable to say that I do not hate people expressing a homosexual lifestyle but I do not support their lifestyle as it is sinful. That being said I must keep it in reference with any other sin such as promiscuity or infidelity.
The church used to have the only authority and the Government used their records as official untill the turn of the century. This was not a violation of church and state but fiscal responsability, why should the governing body run a duplicitous office of marriage & birth records when they could use the church's records free.
This is what I've been saying all along. Any two people can get a civil union (for straight couples, this was formerly known as a marriage license). Some city official performs the ceremony, and the couple has now formed one financial entity. If they then want a religious ceremony, they can knock themselves out. The government's role is done, they can find any church that'll marry them. Then they have their religious ceremony, and everyone is happy.
I think it should go even further and that three people can be involved in civil unions, maybe even more then that. Where I am living ovrseas, a man can have 4 wives. I think thats fine but that also a woman could have 4 husbands as well (which is not allowed here). I also think that those spouses can marry each other so its not just between one central person. Pretty radical ideas, but the thought of two people of the same sex getting married is just as radical an opinion in my book and it's becoming the norm. And yes I'm a Conservative and yes I am saying this because I believe in it not saying it as a joke. Look at our society now and its divorce rate and affairs, I think a triad is a viable alternative to the cheating game and much healthier for everyones happiness and health (as long as they were not having affairs outside). My wife started talking about what happenned to Steve McNair and I told her that he should have tried a triad relationship, maybe he'd still be alive now.
Also check out what Camille Paglia says.
I believe in freedom and that two men or women will have legal and societal relationships with each other, but that it goes too far to break down marriage because the male and female relationship is what it always has been and let's keep it that way.
Homosexuality is an aberration. Keep it in the closet.
The government attaches that label, and when the government attaches that label, it risks defining that institution. Since marriage is primarily seen as religious, the various religions should be free to define what a marriage is to them. The government only gets to decide what legalities are attached to those unions. Government puts its foot in its mouth when it calls civil union "marriage."
It should be this way: every couple who wants to get married finds a religion to marry them. Every couple who wants the government legalities extended to couples gets a civil union. Yes, that means all married couples would have to get both a marriage and a civil union, but it preserves the freedom of religion and allows couples equal rights under law.
So, I guess "No to Prop. 8" activists protesting (read: rioting) in California last November was them throwing a tantrum.
It's sad how gay activists refuse to grow up and live like responsible, law-abiding adults.
None of those guys have had to hide anything for centuries.
Elton John on gay "marriage":
"I don't want to be married. I'm very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership The word marriage, I think, puts a lot of people off. You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships."
http://www.protectmarriage.com/article/elton-john...
In short, John notes correctly that civil unions give gay couples the SAME benefits as straight marriage couples. See California or my hometown of Washington, DC for examples.
So, fighting for gay "marriage" is unnecessary.
Not being an expert on Roman Civil Code, I would think that any such provisions would be attached primarily to male couples given the lesser freedoms that women had. And I wonder how many of these provisions of civil code came into being because of an Emperor rather than because of the people's decisions via the Senate or similar body.
An Emperor has the power of decree. So did the provisions in the code pre-date the Empire (ROman Republic) or were they created during the Imperial Age.
And I wouldn't trust the History Channel on this one entirely. Think about it. We live in a society where most people think it odd to only have sex with one gender in the sense that everyone knows about it. Look how sceptical we all are when Ahmadinejad announced that there were no gays in Iran. We thought it odd because we all know better; in other words, it is culturally accepted that people will seek to have sex with more than one gender or be attracted to the same sex as themselves. Just because we all accept that it happens does not mean that we all think it's right. Even Fred Phelps would think it odd if there were a society with no homosexuals even though he is a rabid hater of those same people (and yes, I know Phelps is usually poison to an argument, but in this case, I'm illustrating how homosexuality can be widely acknowledged by a society even if it isn't quite accepted).
The coin flips both ways. Just as there very religious folks who will oppose any recognition of couple status for couple status., there are also homosexuals who will accept nothing less than full recognition by every body empowered to recognize such unions.
Can we call them "normphobes"?
Gay marriage means it will be taught in school in the name of diversity. No way around it. Regardless of the merits or demerits of this position, it is another egregious example of how public schools are used to indoctrinate the youth in the liberal agenda. Johnny can't read and will more than likely drop out so can we spend a little more time on the three Rs and drops the diversity, eco, etc. time suck bs that teachers love? Maybe if the teacher's colleges didn't instill such a dream of the joys of indoctrination in new teachers over the goal of imparting knowledge, the nation wouldn't be talking about merit pay for teachers so much?
I haven't run into too many conservatives who are opposed to civil unions for all. Even those who oppose homosexuality usually concede that it's only fair for the government not to discriminate against a couple when they sign over legal benefits. It runs into that whole "equal protection under law" idea. However, Churches are the primary reason why this country exists as many of our founding groups were escaping religious persecution, not to be anti-religion, but simply to practice their faith in their own way. As such the idea of religious freedom is a bedrock founding principle ensconced in the first amendment. And many conservatives feel that if this thing carries out to its logical conclusion one side – homosexuals or religion – will inevitably lose their freedom in some way.
Yes because behavior like that always convinces people who may think of homosexuality as a perversion that they should tolerate or even accept to some small degree the gay community … If I follow this logic, African-Americans should celebrete their heritage by behaving like the inferior beings that racial hate groups like the KKK would have us believe they are.
Do you even begin to see why throwing public spectacles celebrating the worst stereotypes society has for homosexuals might not be helping their agenda? If all homosexuals acted like the ones at Gay Pride parades, people would have far less tolerance for them because don't want to see other people engaged publically in that kind of behavior, gay or straight.
Yes because behavior like that always convinces people who may think of homosexuality as a perversion that they should tolerate or even accept to some small degree the gay community … If I follow this logic, African-Americans should celebrete their heritage by behaving like the inferior beings that racial hate groups like the KKK would have us believe they are.
Do you even begin to see why throwing public spectacles celebrating the worst stereotypes society has for homosexuals might not be helping their agenda? If all homosexuals acted like the ones at Gay Pride parades, people would have far less tolerance for them because generally people don't want to see other people engaged publically in that kind of behavior, gay or straight.
"Plus, it’s not everyday that I get to put on a Leprechaun costume"
It's not everyday… just Tuesday nights and weekends after 4pm.
What a hoot, but I am seriously disturbed. I think you got that Leprauchan from the Boston St. Patrick's Day Parade.
On another note, to all of you who think that the goverment should get out of the marriage business, then I say to you that it needs to get out of the education business. The goverment is actively propogandizing one side of this debate, and it has not business doing so.
This has always been my argument too. As a Catholic, we regard marriage as a sacrament, so really the state can't "marry" anyone. I'd love for the state to be restricted to civil unions to avoid the confusion.
I'm gay, conservative and despise those stupid parades. They certainly made it harder for me to explain to my mother how I was still normal–after all that crap was flashed across news channels year after year.
Oh…and Crowders really cute
I have ZERO issues with civil unions between consenting adults. That's legal and not anything I should be afraid of or against. If the participants want to make a big cerimony out of it, fine. Marriage buy definition should not be altered to serve a sliver of our nation's population. It's a ~biological~ thing, you may not understand.
I have ZERO issues with civil unions between consenting adults. That's legal and not anything I should be afraid of or against. If the participants want to make a big cerimony out of it, fine. Marriage by definition should not be altered to serve a sliver of our nation's population. It's a ~biological~ thing, you may not understand.
I'll check it out…so, they still NEED men to, er..reproduce? I'm shocked!
Damn how that science gets in the way…
I think that if gay marriage was ever a consideration for the Supreme Court that only one of two outcomes (assuming they actually follow past decisions) will happen: same sex marriage will remain the only legally recognized sexual relationship or marriage will no longer be legally recognized. That is because of what happened in the 18th Century against polygamy and the Mormons. The final ruling on that has been ignored, but I feel it absolutely has to do with the gay marriage debate. Basically, it already decided at least Federally that marriage was between one man and one woman.
I agree with Richard; amazing how quickly gays were so eager to latch onto the squareness that is marriage…total asshats.
One reason Government got involved in recognizing marriage was to specify in Law the inheritance of Land and Title.
Which meant the King's second born son, born to the Queen, took the crown before the first born son, born to a mistress, did – which followed the precedent set by Abraham (Isaac was born after Ishmael, by his wife Sarah…)
Factor in divorce, and folks like Henry VIII, and it gets even muddier.
And a racist. And hate-filled. And against decent honest people trying to get ahead. And get health care. And brainwashed by (organized) religion. And against Obama just because he's black. And want to see Biffy the polar bear die when all the ice melts.
In short, admit we're conservatives, at least that we're Republicans. So, see you at the Klan meeting, where this week we'll be discussing if we need different nooses for blacks and gays. Don't forget your Bible!
Disagree, AverageJoe. It's because purely MALE sexuality expresses itself in sheer raunchiness. The only thing that prevents every last heterosexual men from being an absolute and utter PIG is WOMEN. Two guys in a relationship are much more likely to understand and permit "open" relationships. Women, not so much. As a general rule, male sexuality is fundamentally different from women and men's brains are fundamentally different from women's.
Men and women, as classes, are not interchangeable. That's why "two men" or "two women" getting married will never be the same as a man and a woman getting married; and, as a general rule (i.e., all things being equal), can never give to their children what a man and a woman, as a union, can. Thus, while society should "support" gay couples with children, in the same way as society should support a single mother, neither the state nor any religious entity should elevate the union of two members of the same sex to two members of opposite sexes.
The state's interest in marriage is not about "love", people! It's about the next generation.
Conservatives used to think that whatever was done behind a closed door was the business of the people doing it, insofar as no one got hurt…now conservative has come to mean 'Christian' and has become infused with Christian dogma, so that even these protectors of individual liberty and privacy are now banging the drum against personal freedom. Outside of a religious reason against same-sex marriage, what else really is there? How can it 'hurt' the institution of marriage when heterosexuals have already destroyed it with quickie Vegas weddings performed by an Elvis impersonator, which are then quickly followed by a trip to divorce court? There would seem to be no need for any complaint, and yet, here we are, banging the broken drum of 'values' and 'tradition', in a country where 50 percent of all so-called 'sacred' marriages end in divorce, and the divorce rates for so-called born-again Christians are higher than the national average.
You must be logged in to post a comment.