Proposition 8


Ok Ok, I get it. This is an emotionally charged topic, but I am going to attempt to approach it logically. The big hang up here seems to be religion. I do not believe that the left is really concerned about equal rights. I know of an entity (who shall remain nameless) who is going through great expense to put all of its employees through an 8 hour tolerance training for gay/lesbian/transgender/etc… On my best day I could only think of an hours worth of offensive things to say so I tend to think 8 hours of training is a tad… excessive. If the left were truly concerned with equal rights they would be happy with civil unions that could grant all the same rights as marriage. This would satisfy the religious people’s need to keep marriage as a holy union. But the left insists that legal rights alone are not enough. It has to go further and violate some people strongly held beliefs. Perhaps the left should learn to be a little more tolerant. Maybe they should attend an 8 hour class on respecting others religions. Most people are sensible and are willing to grant the legal rights. See I believe that this actually a little dishonest on the part of the left. Their goal is to attack any church that refuses to conduct a same-sex marriage. If they can get the law to call it marriage, they can eventually sue any church who refuses to conduct a same-sex marriage to remove their tax exempt status. What is wrong with respecting someones deeply held beliefs? They are trying to drag churches into the public arena. The left has virtually succeeded in the entire separation of church and state fallacy, and now wants to use the courts to control the dogma of the church. I do not have a problem with gay people, and I am not homophobic. However, there are some basic facts of humanity that homosexuals will never be able to change. The sad fact of the matter is that homosexual jokes are FUNNY. They will always be funny. I respect your right to be gay if you like, but if you choose that path, you should respect my right to make fun of it. ESPECIALLY if you are going to flagrantly prance around in something akin to a circus outfit. In the court of public opinion it is hard to take a 350 pound man seriously wearing a Princess Leia bikini and a pink boa. Ok that last sentence make it official I have failed at my original goal. I have no problem granting legal rights, but you need to practice the tolerance that you preach! Homosexuals are for a large part intolerant of Christians and their beliefs. Look you guys and gals have it pretty good here in the USA. Let’s take an objective view here. Islam says to kill homosexuals, Christianity says to talk to them… Everyone has a right to choose whatever you want. Great I am happy for you. I hope you live a happy life with your significant other, but I have a right to be a Christian and follow my beliefs. Proposition 8 passed for one reason alone. People saw through the charade. People knew what the actual agenda is. If you ask to pass a law for Civil unions granting the same rights I guarantee it would OVERWHELMINGLY pass. We want you to be happy, but you do not have the right to step on our toes to achieve your happiness.

Spank, TMB


About Guiltygovernment

Watchman of all things political.
This entry was posted in Spank, The Monkey Boy TMB for short. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Proposition 8

  1. Oh and by the way, do NOT compare same-sex unions to the civil rights movement. Those guys went through HELL living their day to day lives. You instantly loose credibility the moment you do so.

  2. D Fayette says:

    Biologically a man is NOT EQUAL to a woman and therefore a man/woman relationship is NOT EQUAL to a man/man or a woman/woman relationship. Every man has the freedom to marry a woman and every woman has the freedom to marry a man, so there in no discrimination in the law that defines that marriage is between a man and a woman. One would have to argue and prove that a man and woman are biologically equivalent in order to rule otherwise.

    Mankind would become extinct without heterosexual relationships but can continue to flourish without homosexual relationships. This fact alone proves that homosexual relationships are in no way equivalent to heterosexual relationships.

    In as much as the survival of mankind and civilization is dependent on the heterosexual relationship, and not the homosexual relationship, civilization (and government) has an obligation to place heterosexuality ABOVE that of homosexuality. Marriage has been the traditional way to honor this relationship.

    • Interesting, I just had a discussion with an individual, and pointed out that everyone does have an equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Some may choose to forgo that right but the option does remain non the less. Where I think a homosexual would argue with you is the emotional equivalancy of the realationship. Remember that to the left emotion is far more important than fact or equality. Emotionally a homosexual relationship is equal to a heterosexual relationship, but functionally it is not. The question does become do we want the merit of marriage to be based on emotion or functionality. I can see no reason why a legally elevated civil union would not under the law fulfil equality. It would also show some tolerance towards the religious community. The left is extremely intolerant of those intolerant Christians…

  3. D Fayette says:

    The law can not be about emotion. To get a civil marriage license there is no requirement to be “in-love”. If all in-love persons are allowed to get married, then indeed we can not limit marriage to just two persons.

    Laws based on emotion and empathy will be constantly changing, depending on the parties involved and the judge hearing the case.

  4. Mark Hancock says:

    Thinking out loud…
    Maybe the “separation of church and state” argument needs to work in reverse: have the government quite issuing “marriage” licenses – have the government only grant “partnership contracts” that confer legal rights to consenting partners; have churches (and here it could get a bit wild) confer the marriage certificates within their belief systems.
    With this, I guess I agree that the left’s real agenda is to bash churches and religion.

  5. Sweetiebv says:

    If we are going to base it on biology, then marriage itself is unnatural. Men were built to procreate with as many different women as possible to propagate the species. Marriage came into being due to civilization and the development of women as property- essentially insurance for a man that his children are his own. Now, marriage is about “love” in most developed countries. Women now have a choice and emotion is essential to marriage. Marriages are ending at such a horrendous rate due to this especially since “irreconcilable differences” and no fault divorce has made it so easy. In that way, divorce law is based on emotion rather than functionality.

    Also, in talking about unnatural things then we have come to a point as a species where a heterosexual relationship is not essential for procreation to take place. I predict survival of the species will not be based entirely upon a heterosexual relationship in the near future. It is interesting also how obsolete marriage has become to young people today when it comes to procreation. Nearly 40% of babies are born out of wedlock in the US and it is much higher in other countries. Many will and have called it the break down of society itself and that may well be, but it does not change the fact that our social norms have irrevocably shifted.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s