Saturday, August 7, 2010

Homosexual Marriage

Homosexuality in general, when not in my face, is OK with me .We all are to some degree homosexual, so I will not blame or ostracize anyone who is not "truly heterosexual" what the hell ever that may be.

I have, however, a problem with “gay pride” and when homosexuals try to make special laws to favor their sexual preferences. Let’s say, that I am a kleptomaniac, and I am proud of it. Should I have laws enacted to prefer me as such? I rest my friggin’ case. If you bring up the argument of "homosexuality is not a preference but ingrained", give me a damn break. I am highly sexual, and I admit that it came with my being from way back. But I don't go around flaunting it or forcing it on others because "I can't help it". I also don't ask the government to give me special dispensation to accommodate my proclevity to prefer my sexual preferences. Dammit, I control my own behavior whether it is sucking a cock or licking a pussy. I go with what is reasonable, and I don't need the state to support my preference. You do your thing, and I will do mine without intruding on your space!

My definition of marriage in the traditional sense is between a man and a woman, whether they are heterosexual or to any degree homosexual. The reason for this is a religious basis. I am not religious, but I respect the belief and dedication of any religious person as long as it is not destructive or restrictive of my own beliefs. For example, if this religious person wants to blow me up because I am not of his faith, I will blow him away without respect to his so-called religion.

Getting back to the marriage issue I think that it is a non-issue. The definition of marriage is as old as mankind. It goes back to Adam and Eve in whatever language or religion. The problem with this came up when the state got into the act. There was a good reason for that, but it was wrong from the conception. The good part is trying to define a lawful state with respect to shared property, shared responsibility for each other and children, and ultimately, inheritance. The thing that is wrong with this is the definition of marriage itself. Marriage is a religious assumption, demonstrated over the years by the sanctions of priests, and other religious leaders. It is a promise to take care of and to serve only each other under God, whatever that god may be. This at some point should have been separated from a state-approved and sanctioned contract, which I call a “civil union”.

A civil union can and should be allowed between and among two or more people or such. The legality can be defined by the friggin’ lawyers to withstand the court’s probes, and should have nothing to do with religious or personal promises that a real marriage represents. Under a civil union, a man should be able to marry a woman, a man, or any number of such, including animals or inanimate objects. I really don’t give a rat's ass about what some man or woman wants to do along these lines as long as they keep it out of my life. This would negate the debate and the issue over the constitutionality of homosexual marriage and the other stuff, and keep it out of the courts.

Well, people have their heads up their asses, so this is not going to happen the way I see it. Stupidity has no bounds. The judge who negated the ballot initiative Proposition 8 in California has his own agenda describing a marriage between a man and a woman as homophobic. Yes, he is self-admitted homosexual, but that is not why he should be booted. Any homosexual is as smart or intelligent as a heterosexual. This guy has an agenda and he uses his position to undo what others in the majority deem proper. That is why he should be booted.


mysster said...

The idea of 'civil union' is an excellent one.

Except that the ways preferences and rights have been construed in the law relate to 'marriages'.

It's a wording issue. Your libertarian solution is great except that each and every connection now in law related to the idea or the word (!) 'marriage' would become a court battle.

A mere allowing of two same-sex people a 'civil union' wouldn't automatically grant them all the rights those in a 'marriage' have. You'd think it would, but it wouldn't. Even if the new law said "It does".

People religiously averse to homosexuality (really, any sexuality if you press them hard enough) would raise court challenges for the next 100 years.

If you don't have a neutral, full community governmental public realm, you get private oppression. We have some control, even over a large state like the USA. We have virtually no control over private corporations or religious communities, even if we own stock or claim membership.

RobertInLB said...

As one of the few intelligent and seeming real sub husbands in a FLM bloggers, it is surprising that you would post such an opinion. The obvious questions are why do you care and how does it effect you?

Curious that you would use the kleptomaniac analogy, sadly negative. Why not just use the marring your dog analogy that those of a similar mindset degenerate too? Your point of moral superiority is apparent. Your marriage is moral, gay marriage is criminal.

If I am to understand correctly, your objection to gay marriage thing is religion based. Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the bible have multiple references to a man's authority in the household and the women's submission to her mate? How does that reflect on your FLM? Is your FLM not a redefinition of traditional marriage? Some might say that your FLM is an assault on traditional marriage. And if the Mormon Church were find out about all these FLM's, and if they were to attempt to influence legislation that would invalidate and outlaw marriages that does not have a male that agrees to the head of household role, you OK with that?

And you know, maybe it's not a matter of gays/lesbians attempting to affect legislation that benefits them but rather their interest in getting in on the the 1,138 federal laws that apply to Americans who are married. Heterosexuals are WAY AHEAD when it comes to passing laws that benefit them and only them.

Finally, you project an opinion that sexual preference is a choice. Care to share when and why you chose to be hetrosexual?