Gay Marriage

First and foremost I’m well aware that my personal thoughts and feelings on this matter, although correct, don’t matter.  Not all the numbers are in yet, but early polling shows that no one cares what I think.

As I already BRILLIANTLY stated in past articles, it would be impossible for me to care less who sleeps with whom (Or is it whom sleeps with who? Whom/Whoever it is, I think we can all agree “sleeping” isn’t what the debate is about.)

Over the past several days I have seen a plethora of my friends change their profile pictures on Facebook to “equal” signs in support of legalizing gay marriage.  In my little brain, those equal signs are a clear indication that gay marriage opponents have lost the battle, and consequently the entire war in the process. And, judging on how they have framed the debate, deservingly so.

Gay Marriage

All over the internet I have seen the same theme from the opponents of gay marriage.  It’s either “God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” or “the book of Leviticus says…” or “gay sex is just icky.”

That’s how those people feel.  I don’t want to dismiss their feelings outright.  Feelings are real, I get that.

Let’s look at these arguments one at a time:

“Adam and Steve” – the ONLY reason this works at all is that it rhymes. “If the glove don’t fit you must acquit.”

“Leviticus says…” – The Old Testament also says you can’t eat hot dogs, or shellfish and you should stone people to death for shopping on Sunday.  If you believe that Jesus is the Christ then you also believe he fulfilled the law of Moses.

“Gay sex is just icky” – Off the top of my head I can list a whole slew of heteros who I shudder to think about, or ever envision them doing the horizontal bone dance (ew gross, I just thought of some – auuuuck pass the ‘brain bleach’).

In my little, newly bleached brain I think the best argument in favor of gay marriage is that “Gay Divorce Court” on TV would be HILARIOUS.  But instead, the group in favor of gay marriage framed the argument around it being a civil liberty.

I have a problem with this for two reasons:  The first is, this is a tactic the left always uses.  It honestly drives me crazy about liberals. If they want something, and they don’t want to have to explain why, they hide it behind a civil liberty. As much as they may want it to be, marriage is NOT a civil liberty. Gay people can vote, go to the same store as everyone, go the same school and can drive on the same highway. What they can’t do is marry someone of the same sex. But neither can I, nor a black, nor a Hispanic. The second reason it bothers me is it forever slams the debate shut.  From now until the end of time being opposed to any form of gay marriage, for any reason, is an announcement that you believe in, and fight for inequality. It is synonymous to advocating getting those who are different from you riding in the back of the bus or drinking from a different water fountain.  Anyone who even suggests a little bit of caution in redefining an institution that, more than likely, predates civilization itself is easily dismissed with no intellectual effort. Why would you listen to such people?  They are clearly bigots, haters, homophobes and knuckle draggers. They have no place in the discussions that will shape the brave new world in which we now live.

You know what?  I just realized the antonym for synonym is antonym.  Well played antonym.  Well played.


Personally I’m for civil unions.  My sister and her life partner have two children. They are wonderful parents.  They have spent tens of thousands of dollars making it so if one of them dies the other gets legal custody. Then there is the stupid business about gay couples not being allowed to visit their partners in the hospital, or not being able to get survivor benefits.  With a civil union all that stuff is done away with, and that to me is a good thing. One piece of paper and you’re done.  I see no reason why gay couples shouldn’t be allowed to do these things.

The big problem is that words mean things.  If you allow society to redefine marriage then eventually marriage will mean everything which will mean it means nothing, and I don’t think that is a good place to go.  “Feelings” and “Love” aren’t a good precedent for a legal discussion.  We are going to have to go through this debate over and over as polygamy and any other variances of marriage rear its head.  Let’s say I’m a 50 year old man who is a widower. My 25 year old daughter and I want to get married. We are both of legal age, and I had never been inappropriate with her growing up.  If “feelings” are what it’s all about, why would you want to stop us? “We love each other.”

I know gays and pedophiles are not the same, but there is a very real push to make pedophilia legal. If it becomes legal what is to stop a 50 year old man from marrying a 12 year old boy? “We love each other.”

What if a man is legally married to a woman, and comes out gay. He loves his wife and his gay lover. Why can’t they all get married? “We love each other.”

If they legalize gay marriage there is going to be a TON of unintended consequences. Again, once “feelings” become precedence it’s going to open up a whole crap load of other issues.  I think an institution that has been around for 6,000 years shouldn’t be pitched on a whim. That’s why, in my little brain, this is an issue for the states to decide. The people of the state, NOT THE JUDGES.  It needs to be put on the ballot.  We would be able to see what the obstacles are and if we decide in the future to make a change we will be doing so informed.

I dunno.  Maybe I’m a knuckle dragger.


LIFEZILLA:  I’m not close-minded.  I’m just right.

Selective Outrage


Grapes of Wrath



26 responses to “Gay Marriage

  1. It’s not a big deal. It just means that the usual ‘PLANNERS’ of all the weddings can finally become “PARTICIPANTS.” 😀
    Obviously, I’m not opposed to gay marriage… (I believe that all people deserve an equal chance to be legally miserable.)
    Okay, Let’s let the “what-ifs” go by the wayside. Gay marriage never did, never can & never will equal incest, statutory rape or bigomy. Those laws are already on the books. They apply. Gay marriage is about same sex partners of legal age, not related & only counted as a party of two…period. Yes, I get the “ick” part of it. That’s only because it isn’t your/my way of expressing love through “junk-touch” w/our beloved. Nonetheless, if you really think about it, it’s a matter of letting those visions of the non-traditional ‘great nasty’ exit from your mind for a moment and to just see two humans that want to be lawfullly committed to each other. Yes, they will continue to express themselves sexually in a different way. They do the big nasty in a way that heteros can’t rationally wrap their heads around… but don’t we all need a shower after completing the way we express ourselves sexually?( If You’re not sure… Trust me-the answer’s yes!) George said it best: SEX IS NATURAL, SEX IS GOOD. NOT EVERYBODY DOES IT, BUT EVERYBODY SHOULD. SEX IS NATUARL, SEX IS FUN. AND SEX IS BEST WHEN IT’S ONE ON ONE.
    Hooray for the gays. Soon they will no longer be looked upon as 3/5 of a couple. Whether the court disallows their rights or empowers them with the acknowledgement they desire, one thing’s for sure… They’ll never at any point be less gay in this lifetime. Therefore, I say…let them have cake!
    Long live diversity!!

    • I just noticed the 3/5 of a couple line. I am crying because I am laughing so hard. Haha. That was brilliant, my friend. Still laughing…out loud…literally! Cyber high five.

      • So glad that there’s at least one person that detects humor on this site. :-]
        AKA: tuning in your “Laugh-DAR”

  2. Hard to argue against such logic, but logic is playing a much smaller part in all of this the further down the road we go.
    Agree with the civil union bit, and agree even more so with the concept that changing what a word means is the first slip down a muddy slope. Winning the war of defining words is what then allows aggressive moves to occur (i.e. the AP’s new standards regarding the term “illegal immigrant).
    And I’m’ not sure that Russell fully digested the paragraph about civil liberties and the methodology of the left given his “3/5 of a couple” comment. Didn’t he just prove your point?

  3. Josh Loveless


    One thing I will say is that I believe you might be wrong on how existing laws already define marriage in a way that doesn’t open any new doors (1+1 only). That’s what this process is all about. The real question being posed is: Is something that is deemed immoral by a smallish majority enough to make such a thing illegal?

    I mean what is the “legal” or in this case Constitutional basis for denying same sex marriage? There isn’t one. Really there isn’t. It doesn’t exist. In fact I expressly remember the Constitution (Bill of Rights) protecting our right to the free and open practice of religion. What if my religion says I can or even should marry a same sex partner? Which right do I then uphold? What right does anyone else have to tell me that I can’t?

    Well that’s all fine and good. But then what about polygamy? What real legal or Constitutional “right” does anyone in this country have to tell me I can’t practice an age-old religious belief that defines marriage between one man and as many women (or men) that I want? What business is it of yours to tell me that I can’t? What harm am I committing to you? We have laws against it sure, but aren’t they by the same liberal logic equally unjust and unconstitutional? In fact why in the hell is the government involved in marriage in the first place? It’s not a government institution after all…

    I keep my personal beliefs very very close to the chest on this issue. I am not saying it is right or wrong or telling anyone else how to think/vote/act/etc. But I do see the potential “legal” pitfall here.

    The real problem is that we have forgotten what civil society is really all about. We’ve forgotten where our laws actually come from. America needs a refresher course in my opinion on some very important and never dated understandings that our forefathers had.

    The fact of the matter is that our civilization is built on a particular moral ethic. That ethic is immutable and is what stitches the fabric of society together. We have a number of laws (so many we can’t even count them) that have nothing to do with anything except that a majority felt it was moral, including the Constitution itself.

    The majority can change that at any time. ANY TIME. But we should all remember that to do so has consequences (good and/or bad). I have no problem with a majority changing things. None whatsoever. But I sure as hell don’t want to hear any whining about it 20 years from now when it doesn’t work out… you know like every other “civil right” we’ve granted everyone and their cat. You know, a right to Social Security, other people’s money generally, medical care, work or no-work depending on how I feel in the morning, laziness, parks, recreational drugs, and so on forever all of them “civil rights”…

  4. Ace, I love the visual texture of your post …”slip down a muddy slope.” LOL! Illustrates the ‘ick’ factor straight men feel about anal intercourse between gay male partners. Let’s face it: Isn’t that @ the heart of why there’s hesitation on legalization- that visual? Don’t our straight, male egotistical minds find lesbians and the visual of their sexual contact much more tolerable (if not exciting) compared to male on male? My point was that if you can get past gay sex acts (especially the male version) & see them as human beings, one should realize that they are Americans that deserve all the same rights as straights whine or no whine 20 years from now. (I can’t predict the future, but I’m pretty confident that the rate of divorce for gays will always remain lower than that of straights. tho I think the census on that truely matters not) I also think it’s a tall order to be asking for no whining in the future. We are ‘all’ Americans … that’s what we do.
    Josh, if you decide to go fwd w/your belief to have more than one spouse because of your religious conviction, I whole-heartedly support you in fighting for that right… honestly. Cody Brown & his sister wives (irony of ironies) were persecuted out of Utah (of all places) to persue their belief of a right to plural marriage relocating here in Southern NV. I think they are inspirational to carry on despite the hippocritical haters out there. Is it legal? No, not yet. Is it moral? Open to speculation/opinion. Is it hurting society if plural marriage were legalized? Nope! Do they deserve to be tolerated as Americans & human beings w/an alternate lifestyle? Hell yes!!!
    Anyway, That’s a whole nutha’ can of worms to bicker over, but it illustrates the similarities in the plight of the gays and the pligs who choose to fight for their perceived right to love the way they want to love and be loved w/o discrimination from the majority of hetero-party-of-two-ers’ out there.
    (‘according to the dictates of your own conscience.’)

  5. So…Danny boy, my biggest problem with this entire argument is that you argue if we allow everybody to be married, then marriage will eventually become everything and that means nothing. I am befuddled by your logic here. Of course, I am a silly Liberal, with only a grade school education, so cut me a little slack here, but explain why there is a need to aggressively oppose and fight against something that will not in any way shape your marriage? I don’t get it. Let’s say gay marriage is legal tomorrow. Will your marriage be different? If marriage equality becomes the law of the land, you still get to go home to your wife/husband and children, just the same way you could the previous day. Your life will not be negatively affected in any way. None. You will not be harmed. I will not be harmed. Our marriages will not be directly affected in any way. Is your marriage and what you conceive it to be based upon the notions of what others do or think? Do you only value your marriage because of how it is defined? Does it not mean more to you? Would it not mean more to you regardless of what marriage your neighbor has? Who cares? Seriously…you want to have five wives. I’ll help you decorate for the big wedding. Why is it my business how many wives you have? It’s not. Have five. Have fifty. You want to marry somebody of the same sex. Have at it. I will be your wedding planner. If you are 50 and want to marry your 25 year old daughter…knock yourself out. I will send you a card in the mail wishing you the best. You see, us pesky Liberals, don’t seem to be threatened by somebody else’s marriage. We seem to be secure enough in our own marriages to know that despite what the neighbors do within their marriages, we will define our own. Marriage: a union of two people who are willing to make a life together, a commitment between two consenting adults trying to find in this life something that will bring them joy, an act of love between two or twenty who see marriage as something beautiful, that they also would like to be part of…that is all they ask. They aren’t asking you to be part of their gay marriage or even buy them a gift; they are asking to be treated like equals. Couples who love each other, because for them it isn’t about hating straight people, they just want what you never had to question. You’ve never been the one begging to just be looked at as a person who wants to commit to his/her partner in a marriage ceremony they value as much as you. They just want to be given the same opportunities as any other couple. They love their partners no less than you, no less than me. Is it too much to ask to allow them the same privileges we are afforded without a fight because we are attracted to the opposite sex?
    And as far as us, Liberals that annoy you hiding behind the argument of civil liberties…well, I guess that all depends on how you define a civil liberty isn’t it? Civil Liberties are the rights things guaranteed to us as Americans by the Constitution. These include Freedom of Religion…and freedom from it. Isn’t the real problem here the “definition” of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, is a religious interpretation? We have defined the word marriage based upon religion. That is a fact. Can we not allow others the freedom from religion?
    We believe that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator that among these are…Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness…does the pursuit of happiness that not include the choice to love and “marry” the person we so choose? I believe it most certainly does. Live and let live.
    The legalization of pedophilia??? Are you for real? Come on. Can you honestly name one person…ONE, sane person that is for the legalization of sexually abusing children? You could say the same for every single right we are granted. We have the right to bear arms. Do we let our children pack heat to play dates? We are entitled the freedom of speech. Do we allow that of our children or do we have rules? Seriously…legalizing gay marriage and the parallel to people marrying children is beneath you. You can do better than that. That is about the pointless, laughable thing I have ever read. I think as a society we can safely allow adults choices that we don’t allow our children.
    And on not changing the institution (good word for marriage) that has existed for 6000 years…puh-lease! I don’t care if something has existed for 60,000 years. Slavery has existed since the dawn of civilization. Perhaps, we shouldn’t have been so hasty freeing the slaves. Maybe we should have kicked that idea around a little longer to make sure we made the right choice?? For the love…Right will never be wrong and wrong will never be right. I don’t give a flying fig how long anything has been around or how many people are doing it or have done it or have believed it…when it is wrong…it is wrong. End it.
    Sorry, I am over by 119 words…I tried.

  6. @Russell

    But see that is my point and really that was Danny’s point as well. Where do we draw the line and why? Really, what business is this of ours anyway? Right?

    But then we did outlaw plural marriage for a reason. Just as we did gay marriage. We (the moral majority anyway) made decisions just like they always do. If you can’t base a decision on a moral ethic because some in the minority disagree, what pray tell should we make government decisions on? This is a country of majority rules with minority rights. I’ve seen and lived in some other countries where that doesn’t exist. I’d not trade my position for theirs, not ever.

    You can’t separate morality from the will of the people, which you cannot separate from the Constitution. The end. So if we want to separate them that’s fine, but realize the Constitution goes down with it. I know that seems to some like a logical leap, but it isn’t. This is because the Constitution IS a document of morals made by men who believed in them. And same sex marriage isn’t the beginning or the end of that process either, just another wheel in the cog.

    I am not talking about religion here either. I am talking about morality (though some can argue that they cannot be separated either). Those morals are the foundation of our society (like them or not). Who decided that a man cannot be deprived of life or property without due process? The moral majority and the men who represented them. Suppose they believed differently (I mean the majority of humanity always has and probably always will)? What then would be the law to replace it? Who should get to decide it? On what basis if not morality would we define it?

    The point is that we in this country govern by what we believe is right. If we cannot govern that way then how then should we govern? Go back to a monarchy? Socialism? Communism? Are there better alternatives?

    So we should all speak our piece then vote with our conscience. If in the end the majority choose differently then we would like, well we will have to deal with the consequences. If the consequences aren’t good ones don’t expect people to be happy about it. And, if it gets ugly before it’s all said and done will that really be a surprise to anyone? Cause honestly I’d rather take my ball and go home (secede, leave, form a new country, rebel, etc) than have to play in a game that’s rigged and I can’t hope to win (stay in a country that chooses mutually ensured destruction of all its citizens so that the “right” of a very few to act immorally without impunity can be upheld). There is no end in that course, because there is no precedence for any of it. None. Instead the ability to choose at all ends badly for everyone.

    And for the record I fully support yours or anyone’s right to act immorally. Just don’t make me and my own responsible for it. And DON’T infringe upon my rights in the process. And I still have a right to choose what is moral and good.

    And that’s what this country is missing right now… it’s moral backbone.

  7. @Tisha,

    Yes. You can name them (you know people who think pedophilia should be legal). In fact many of them have been arrested in Southern Utah…

    • I said a sane person. 🙂 Jeffs and his likes are hardly sane, by even the most liberal of definitions. They are elite members, of a small religious faction, who are hated by most. So much, that they were forced to flee the state in order to avoid prosecution for the sexual abuse of children within their sick compound. I am pretty sure they headed your way. Lol. The abusing of children is not tolerated by the majority. Not even close. Even in prisons, those who have hurt children, pay a very high price. The argument is moot. Somehow we’ve yet to extend right to carry a loaded handgun to third graders, I think we can do the same with marriage.

      And sure, as a society we govern by our perceptions of moral propriety. It. seems only logical to do so, it is all we have by with which to govern. That said, the same men that used their moral code to write the Constitution were not perfect. They may very well have done the best job humanly possible for that specific time period, but hardly the moral compasses by which to gauge all of our behavior.

  8. Josh,
    Answer: We draw the line @ discrimination.
    It’s immoral to discriminate.
    The end.

  9. Josh Loveless

    @ Russell and Tisha,

    You guys are missing the point. You say draw the line at discrimination. OK. Well Warren Jeffs believes, as do his follower, that he is in the right (that he is behaving morally). It’s WE who have decided that he is “insane”, “immoral”, and a criminal. We the majority decided it. We decided to discriminate against it.

    And yet the average age of marriage on this planet is still almost impossible to define. Why? Because there is no study that can account for those forced into marriage outside of their will. It is only in the last 100 years that the U.S. has decided that 18 is the magic number for which one has the right to decide things for herself.

    In India, the Malay countries, the Middle East, and Africa marriages are still arranged and girls are married as young as 12 and 13. And plural marriage is still practiced in many of these countries. If we don’t allow Indian immigrants to marry ten 13 year-olds isn’t that discrimination? After all they believe that they are behaving morally.

    Furthermore, you say we can have same sex marriage but still place moral boundaries on marriage. Well to the amoral and those who don’t share your beliefs those boundaries are as equally arbitrary as the boundary of defining marriage between one man and one woman. In your own mind, you’ve made it out that your particular brand of morality is superior and that you have the right to dictate the terms. That’s OK. After all to a small extent that’s what this country is all about.

    But don’t be surprised, hurt, or upset and lash out angrily when others disagree with you. Or does that not fall under your definition of morality?

    Furthermore, before we simply toss aside the “foolish” and “imperfect” wisdom of our forefathers consider this:

    Those men were so inspired that they knew the document they were writing would have to be elastic and changeable enough to accommodate a nation very unlike the one they formed. In fact, in their inspired wisdom they even knew that they must ensure forever the right of this country to choose even its own destruction.

    They did this because they believed as did that ancient prophets that, “it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law-to do your business by the voice of the people. And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.” (Notice he said YOU, not just THEM).

    And also that “we can behold the decrees of God concerning this land, that it is a land of promise; and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall serve God, or they shall be swept off when the fullness of his wrath shall come upon them. And the fullness of his wrath cometh upon them when they are ripened in iniquity.”

    Can you say that this isn’t a step in that direction? Can you guarantee to the moral majority in this country that this isn’t yet another step on the pathway to destruction?

    When you are standing on the precipice of a steep cliff and the wind is blowing at 100 mph the wise man stays as far from the edge as possible. Liberal logic dictates that I and my family should line up on the edge while wearing very baggy clothing and spreading out our arms for the “benefit of society”.

    For me, I will vote with the morality of prophets and patriots who sealed their convictions and our right to choose freedom or destruction with their blood, sweat, tears, and treasure. The same who’s blood cries out for judgement against the wicked of this generation.

    If the legal and moral implications of same-sex marriage can be contained by the majority than so be it, I have no problem with it. But what Danny is really asking here is should we walk so quickly into such a decision without weighing the possibilities and considering the potential consequences. If we do simply because we think it’s discriminatory and hurtful and take no other considerations than it’s my opinion that we are fools and deserve what’s coming.

  10. Josh Loveless

    …and just to clarify what I meant by choosing between freedom and destruction:

    The quickest way to end a man’s mortal agency is to take his life. There is no freedom for the dead except that which God decides to give. It is only in this life that the agency of some affects the agency of others.

  11. Josh Loveless

    …oh yea. And once we’ve decided the issue of same sex marriage what’s next? Well of course it’s the definition of the family. It HAS to be. Because same sex couples can’t have children of their own, yet will want children. So how then should we decide that issue (both legally and morally)?

    If you think it’s simple, think again…. Where do one persons rights end and another’s begin? For example what about the right of a mother to choose not to allow adoption into a same sex household. Or the right of a child to choose not to live in a same-sex household. Or the rights of a surrogate parent over the rights of an adopting parent. How about birth certificates with three and four parents on them (these actually now exist in states where same sex marriage has been made legal). Which of the four parents gets to choose what is in the child’s best interest?

    You want to make this out to be a simple issue of discrimination, but the fact is it’s not. Not even close. There IS in fact a very slippery slope here, issues that if we decide to legalize gay marriage needs to be figured out.

  12. You are right, the founding fathers did follow the logic of ancient prophets, I completely agree. Among other things, they also had no problem with bondage and slavery, an issue that is fundamentally abhorrent. That said, I were inspired men in regards to writing the Constitution and I am now and forever grateful to them.

    Second, I am not in the least bit angry, upset or lashing out. I simply disagree. That’s all. Last time I checked, that was still allowed. Why when I disagree am labelled angry? Danny gets everything. No fair. He isn’t called angry or mean for saying what he does. Snap. It must be nice to be in the majority It’s been so long since I’ve been there I forget the perks that come with it . 🙂

    I’ll go back to my happy place, and leave you in your Conservative blog heaven where no one will disagree with you or lash out in anger. Because let’s be honest, I am in a happier place in a dentist’s chair than on a Conservative blog. Peace out. 😉

  13. Tisha is right: “Right will never be wrong and wrong will never be right. I don’t give a flying fig how long anything has been around or how many people are doing it or have done it or have believed it…when it is wrong…it is wrong. End it.”

    At some point we have to say, [fill in the blank] is wrong, no matter how many people in our society are doing it, have done it, or want to make it legal.

  14. Josh Loveless

    @ Tisha

    I don’t think you are angry and I wasn’t really referring to you in that comment. But Russell did use some very ugly imagery to paint Danny with which is what made me think of it. And I totally respect Russell and his opinions and right to say whatever he wishes and do not judge him (or at least I try not to, nobody’s perfect), only his comment.

    AND I might add that that argument goes both ways. Just because I disagree with something morally doesn’t make me a bigot, a jerk, or evil. But that’s exactly what the left would like everyone who disagrees with them to be labeled. And I can’t stand either the idea that the right feels it has the morally authority to bully. Hence we cannot even have a civilized discourse on this subject.

    Furthermore, choosing to end slavery wasn’t a step towards destruction but away from it. Nobody ever is going to argue otherwise. And thankfully our forefathers foresaw the day it would end and gave us a way to end it. But ending slavery is not even in the same realm as legalizing same-sex marriage, not even remotely. Not even in the same galaxy. I don’t understand any liberal logic or “theology” that places those two things as equal.


    That’s exactly my point. At some point we stand up and say “This far, and no further” because that’s part of a mortal existence. Nobody else is going to solve these problems for us.

    Again I have not advocated (not once) for either opinion, and you will likely never hear me do so. This is because my own true opinion on this subject is likely not acceptable to either the left or the right and I just don’t want to go down that path.

    However, there ARE in fact big issues here! My point wasn’t to make anyone mad. I want an honest debate on these issues. But they’ve never been addressed. Instead you made the argument personal.

    I would genuinely like to know exactly on what and where people think we should draw the line, how we intend to enforce that line, what we intend to say to people who disagree with where the line is drawn, and most importantly how this decision will affect American families, not just couples. There ARE in fact hundreds of moral, ethical, and legal questions in this debate that are going largely unnoticed and unanswered. And they aren’t trivial either. So when will be able to move past the ugliness of the current discussion and actually discuss the real issues at stake?

    Until that time we are just banging the “drums of intolerance” on both sides. If we can work through all those issues in a reasonable manner then I could care less how anyone defines marriage….

  15. Josh,
    you are confusing/misconstruing my wicked, wretched SARCASM w/anger. Fer totally sure, Dude…I’m not angry.
    I too like Tisha just disagree w/you.
    I think you say a lot of misguided, random things w/o solutions or resolutions. However, I believe you deserve an A+ in distractive fear-mongering.
    I choose rather to by-pass the bullshit & get to the heart of the matter with this topic…. with definitions & clearity and stuff. Sometimes with vivid discription(s). (Viewer discretion is advised.) But cha’ gotta’ love free speech, right?
    So, It sounds like you fear that GOD will smite you & the world if you support the gays or if they get to have the same rights as you regarding marriage.
    I don’t share those same feelings. I don’t believe there are ‘issues @ stake’ for the ‘straights’ if gays are allowed to legally marry. I personally feel that denying gays the right to marry is discrimination against gays. I believe the true SIN is in attempting to deny any group of people their right to the persuit of perceived happiness through marriage. Obviously you disagree & I support you in your right to feel that way. I just simply disagree w/you. That’s really it. No hard feelings. No lashing out. Just an opposing view.

  16. So, how exactly did the fore fathers give us a way out of slavery? The right to bear arms. Did we not wage an all out war against each other? Brother against brother? What do you mean they provided a means for us to end it? The rifle? I’m not tying to be snarky, I am sincerely interested as to what you are referring to?

    And, for the record here, I’ve never called anybody on this blog a bigot, a jerk or evil. Although, I think Liberals have been referred to as stupid, dumb asses, emotional train wrecks and other not so nice things. I have the utmost respect for Danny and know he is a good person. He makes me laugh. His wit is uncanny and absolutely hysterical at times. Yes, we may disagree, at times vehemently, but if I truly thought he was a bigot, I wouldn’t give him or his blog the time of day. Not a chance. And, as tired of the rights seems to be being labelled racist bigots, the left is just as tired of being portrayed as the ones slinging those labels. I have never assumed because somebody is Conservative that they are a bigot. That is just silly.

    You talk about nobody being willing to talk about the hard questions and the real consequences you parallel with allowing same-sex marriage…ask away. I will address any concern you want to throw at me. I don’t know that I will know all the answers. I never implied it would be easy to figure out every moral dilemma, but I think it is worth it to try. It is not that I don’t get it. I haven’t missed the point, I understand where you feel this is a slippery slope and won’t be easy, I just disagree. I don’t see same-sex marriage as the first step on the road to destruction. I don’t. The right of a mother to choose a same-sex couple or not? Hmmm. Sure She can choose. She can choose now if she wants a Christian family, a Caucasian couple, a couple with no other children. If she wants to make a decision about gender, go ahead. The right of a child to live in a same-sex household. I guess that child would have the same rights a child has to not want to live in a hetero household. Really? The rights of children, huh. Well, let’s see, last time I checked, they had none. If my children had a choice they would live with somebody who didn’t go to church, they would rather live with a mother who didn’t make them wear coats, brush their teeth or do homework. I guess it is a good thing they don’t get a choice. Poor kids. Surrogate parents vs. Adoptive parents laws are already in place, for hetero couples so the same would stand for same sex. Birth certificates should legally only list biological parents. If you contributed to the DNA of the child, you get your name on the official certiifcate. It is a legal document. If you want honorary mothers, fine…print your own certificate and list them. What else?

    Yes, as a society we must at some level choose what we will allow and not allow and what we consider lawful. I hate guns. HATE. I mean I loathe them. I hate alcohol too. I wish it was banned. There are a lot of things I hate or things I find amoral, but I also can understand that I don’t get to make that choice for everybody else. I can hate guns with everything in me, but still not believe in passing a law to ban them. I can loathe alcohol and still make allowances for those that like it. I don’t need a law to be passed. Where I do draw the line is when one person coerces or harms another human being. That for me becomes criminal. You don’t get to act recklessly with no regard for others. Children should be protected first and always. They are legally. and sheer common sense dictates children are unable to make and consent to anything. Therefore, any child will always be protected on my ballot. I don’t care if it is your religion, belief, fetish, or sexual preference…you don’t get to choose for a child. Sorry. If you are an adult, you should be free to make your own choices as long as they don’t harm others. Making the jump from same-sex marriage to people marrying children is laughable. We sure as hell don’t allow hetero couples to do it without consequence, why would that change for gay couples? Simple. It wouldn’t. Really. I get it. For me, that line is NOT allowing same-sex marriages. What is my line? I don’t know, Josh. Can anybody really answer that? I don’t see allow same sex couples the right to marry as a start of the destruction of society, in fact, I see it as the direct opposite. I see it as a step in the right direction. I disagree with you about what it does or does not represent or how it will detrimentally effect society as a whole.

    I have no problem with people believing certain things are amoral or evil, but I do have a problem when we use religion to make laws. I really take issue with that. We can legislate morality without bringing the Bible to the table. We can agree that children are off limits without using religion. It can be done. Maybe government should just get out of the marriage business and leave the decision to churches. Having a secular union recognized by the state and religious matrimonial ceremonies may be an option. Many countries have gone that route. Perhaps, it is time we do too.

  17. Josh Loveless


    Thanks… That was about as useless a response as I can think of. Again, you didn’t address a single point I made. Nor did I say that legalizing gay marriage equals destruction. Did I not say it is only a cog? An amoral society (majority) however will cause our destruction. You don’t even have to be religious to see the truth in that.

    What I am trying to say most is that this isn’t the “black and white” issue that people want to make it out to be. That we shouldn’t be driving this with emotion alone. What I am really asking is for people to stop thinking and voting “like their lady parts depend on it” (which by the way is repugnant) (or their man parts) and start thinking and voting with their brains too (or in other words their whole soul).

    @ Tisha

    I am going to ignore everything you said about the second amendment because that was simply ridiculous. Instead let me remind you how our forefathers gave us a way out of slavery:

    Article 5 –
    The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

    The emancipation proclamation didn’t officially end slavery, it couldn’t. It was wonderful and important and awesome, but in the end it had to be something more. It had to be an amendment. Thus the thirteenth amendment was passed in 1865.

    Thirteenth Amendment –
    Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
    Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation

    So now I am going to use your own example to illustrate my point. After the 13th amendment was passed was this issue resolved? Hell no! Was the issue of equality and freedom resolved? Hell no again! In fact it’s still being fought today. And it took another 100 years, 1-freaking-hundred, for us to FINALLY pass the Voting Rights Act, and 99 years to pass an amendment prohibiting discrimination at the voting booth through poll taxes and the like (thanks to some very wonderful Republicans and Democrats).

    Now, please don’t read for one second that I am advocating that we should have waited to free slaves until all of this was “figured out”. In fact quite the opposite. I wish from the deepest parts of my soul that when the 13th amendment was written and passed that it better laid down the measures of equality and also guaranteed the right to vote. I wish from the deepest part of my soul that this country was not still battling with this issue today.

    And that’s my point. This issue isn’t anything like slavery. As much as Russell and others would like to pretend that there aren’t very serious potential consequences to the legalization of gay marriage, it’s simply not true. The biggest issue is of course, just like you stated Tisha, should the Constitution be used as a religious or anti-religious battering-ram? That’s how some would like to use it. And that’s NOT what I am suggesting. Not in the least.

    What I am saying is that there are in fact numerous MORAL, LEGAL, and even BIOLOGICAL pitfalls that surround this argument. We don’t want the Constitution being used as a document to enforce morality (not religion), but that’s exactly what we are asking it to do here (on both sides), and in many ways that’s exactly what it ultimately does.

    So here’s our chance, right now, to figure this out. If we don’t, the potential exists for the moral fabric that holds this society together to be torn apart because we are opening the doors to moral judgement by society instead of by a higher power (whatever that might be). In other words, and this is my opinion, we won’t get 100 years to figure it out like we did with the 13th.

    I only invoked those two quotes (which were not from the Bible (which by the way should be capitalized) to make the point that there are consequences to our actions as a people (collectively)… which oddly enough is more a liberal belief than a conservative one. And I mean Tish, unless you don’t believe that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah and turned Lot’s wife into a pillar of salt (whatever that means) then surely you can admit that we should watch our step around building a moral society and that we should do it the right way?

    So back to my point about solving the problems. I told you I wasn’t going to give you my solutions because all it will do is open another huge can of worms. This has already been can enough for me. If you would like to hear my true thoughts on this, reach out to me in private on Facebook. I think you’ll find I agree with you more than I disagree, especially with your last suggestion.


  18. @josh

    whoa! whoa! whoa! first off, my lady parts aren’t repugnant and I will vote with them whenever I feel so inclined! ( ; and, if I were you, I’d speak more reverently of those lady parts…afterall, last election more of those screaming lady parts voted than the male counterparts! haha.

    Article 5 was great. No argument. It was hardly the foresight for the abolishment of slavery. We fought a war before invoking Article 5. Big. Huge. Bloody. Massacre. I think it is fair to say, that is probably not what the good fathers had in mind, but I could be wrong. And, of course I wasn’t paralleling abolition with legalizing same sex marriage. Perhaps, I should have clarified. I only used slavery as a reference because you were speaking of the morality of the founding fathers. Morality is such an ambiguous word. I am not sure I would use the world moral. That is just me. Many of these men were not my idea of “moral.” That’s all. Brilliant. Brave. Inspired. Yes, moral is iffy for me. Slavery?? I don’t know that you can be morally sound and still think you are entitled to own another person. But, that’s just me…I still think they were good people. Another can of worms. Another day. ( ;

    Whether or not we want the Constitution used as the Morality Police, it is what it is. Morality has to be legislated to a certain degree in any society. In order to sustain peace and any level of safety, there must be a certain code of conduct enforced. It is up to us to determine what the code entails. Is it a slippery slope? You better believe it. But, as far as same sex marriages go, I can truly think of 100 other issues that I believe are more detrimental to society than this one. It seems as a society, we tend to accept the “sins” that are ascribed some type of religious basis and turn a blind eye to those that don’t. Maybe it makes us feel better about ourselves to point out what we AREN’T doing wrong instead of focusing on what we could be doing better. If we are going to have a real discussion about the morality of this nation and where it is headed, there are several other issues we must also address. It is one of many. You state their are concerns about the consequences of this decision, morally, legally and biologically as if none of those consequences exist for hetero couples. If we want to make the argument that same sex couples aren’t fit to be parents, we better be ready to say that hetero couples that divorce aren’t either. We better be ready to say that if you get a girl pregnant, you marry her. If we want to protect society from anything other than the traditional, nuclear family…well, we better clean up our own backyards, because “Houston, we have a problem.” How many times are you allowed to divorce before you lose your children? Exactly how many affairs are we allowed before we lose the right to be parents? Biologically, I assume you are speaking about multiplying and replenishing and while same sex couples can’t officially have a child together the “right” way, (afterall, that is why God made man and woman different and dependent upon each other) you are thinking we would eventually become extinct without perpetuating the species. Ok, I’ll bite. Sure, it could happen. Does that mean we no longer allow hetero couples that for one reason or another get pregnant the natural and right way to adopt or seek out other “artificial” means of insemination. Are we going to nix in-vitro procedures? Ready to adoption to any couple who cannot conceive on their own adoption the boot? Because if that is your argument…God didn’t intend gay couples to have babies, could that not also be argued the other way. Obviously, if a woman, or couple can’t conceive naturally, it could only mean that is how God wanted it. Are we ready for that discussion too? Let’s be honest…yes, it is one heckuva slippery slope. Anytime we begin to choose for another human being we walk a fine line, folks…a very fine line. I absolutely agree we need to be careful within society and be as moral, upright, decent human beings in order to remain vibrant and successful. I just don’t think we need government to do that for us. We don’t need a law against gay marriage. We don’t need laws on abortion. We don’t need laws about hiding alcohol in restaurants. We don’t need laws about guns. We need to just be better people. That’s all. ( :

  19. @josh and here we are again…full circle. Better than what? Better according to who? Who decides morality? Who decides right from wrong? How do we decide what benefits most, yet excludes no one? Well, you got me. I don’t think we do. I don’t think we can. Our best bet is start at home, with ourselves. Do better. Be better. Stop worrying about laws and begin caring more about each other. Stop drawing battle lines. Dig our heels out of the sand and forge bridges. Love each other. As in really,tuly love each other. When that happens, it is amazing how little we care about trivial things. When you love someone, it is so much easier to see yourself as an equal. We have to stop pretending we know all the answers. We don’t. We can’t know the battles people fight that are unknown to us. We can’t possibly imagine the life some have lived or what causes them to do what they do. We can’t pretend we would not dote exact same thing if we were in their situations because we haven’t been. We may never know. Assume the best. Always. I think that’s where we start. This isn’t about laws. If laws kept people moral, our prisons would be empty.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *