Reasons I support gay marriage

Well, I guess that’s not exactly accurate. I support getting politicians, government and nosy, bigoted ass nuggets out of marriage, and I suppose it’s not the same thing. In perfect congruence to my views on smaller government and personal liberty, I absolutely, positively 100 percent support gay people having the freedom to marry whom they choose in a venue of their choice – as long as there is no coercion involved on either end. This last bit is important. Just as I believe gays and their supporters shouldn’t use government force to compel churches, synagogues, other religious venues to recognize a union they believe is immoral, I also strongly believe that using government force to prevent people from spending their lives with those they love and receiving equal protection under the law is morally repugnant.

In other words: GET GOVERNMENT AND POLITICIANS OUT OF MARRIAGE!

Why?

Because gay people should have the same rights and legal protections as straight people when they choose to spend their lives together. They deserve the happiness and joy of being a family and being recognized as such.  They deserve to get the flag if their loved one is killed in battle. They deserve to be considered family when visiting their loved ones at the hospital. They should be able to get health insurance coverage like any other family member.

Because it’s no one’s business but theirs. Marriage is a personal matter. It’s a contract between the grown-ups involved and their God (if they have one). You wouldn’t want politicians interfering in your straight union, right? It’s none of their business, right? Then why the hell would you want them to interfere in the lives of others in a similar manner?

Because religion needs to be protected from government too. The moment you allow government to define a religious concept, you allow government a measure of control over religion. If two guys find a church willing to perform their marriage ceremony, do you really want politicians stepping in and preventing that church from doing so? If the politicians can control one church, they can control all churches. And if it can control all churches, giving preference to a certain religion – one with which politicians agree, then it has just violated the First Amendment – that whole Congress shall make no law… you remember that, right?  Marriage is a religious institution, and there are many religions out there, and they all need to be protected from government force.

Because gay marriage threatens no one.  First marriage divorce rates in America are higher than 40 percent. States that have legalized gay marriage have not seen higher divorce rates – quite the opposite actually. And while I’m not the type to equate correlation with causation, it’s plain that gay marriage at the very least has had no effect on divorce rates.

Because being a loving family should not be limited to straight people. Families support each other. Families have children. Families provide a measure of stability. And it is unfair, immoral and unethical to use government force to deny any individual these things based on his or her sexual orientation.

And finally…

Because I can’t imagine allowing ignorant, corrupt politicians, many of whom couldn’t recognize a family value if it bit them on their shriveled nutsacks to define what is ethical and moral in a personal relationship.

I know there are many of you out there whose faith tells them that marriage is a religious institution – a traditional union between a man and a woman. Fine. If that is what you choose to believe – if that is what your faith tells you – then believe it. Don’t marry someone of the same sex. Don’t condone it. That is up to you. And no one should stop you.

But there are Christian denominations, Jewish denominations and other faiths out there that accept and perform gay marriages, and they should be free to do so, just as your church should be free to deny them if it goes against your church’s teachings.

Gays are citizens of this nation. They work. They pay taxes. They MUST have the same rights as everyone else.

And that is all.

17 responses

  1. […] Reasons I support gay marriage […]

    Like

  2. I support gay civil unions but not gay marriage. Civil unions would impart the same rights and benefits as marriage. I object to gay marriage on the grounds that marriage is a typically religious institution.

    As a Christian, I cannot condone a union that according to everythig I have ever studied in my many years of Bible study, was instituted by God and is at its best a reflection of the reelationship between Christ and the Church (The church universal, not any particular denomination.), and at its worst is a poor reflection on Christ and the church, and is not taken seriously enough by many within the church.

    In Germany, the government does not recognize church weddings. All marriages are civil unions. The religious folks in the population have their Church weddings sometime within a short time after (usually the weekend following) the civil ceremony. We had a German civil ceremony and a church wedding back in the states with our families months later.

    I think that marriage should be the purview of religion and civil union should be the purview of government. Everyone can be happy. Except. Those on the Gay marriage side of the issue want to force acceptance by conservative religious people for whom it would be a violation of consience under their religious beliefs to do so.

    This is less about personal civil rights than the forceful norming of a behavior that some people find immoral. If it were only about civil rights, civil unions would be acceptable as an institution, Practitioners of the gay lifestyle would not be in my face with what should be happening behind their closed doors. As a heterosexual married person, I am not in anyone’s face with PDA. My sex life remains where it belongs – in my private bedroom and it’s nobody’s business. They make their sex lives everyone’s business in order to push an agenda. If they were willing to live and let live, there would be less of a problem for many of us who do not approve. If you’re gay, why do I need to know?

    I am a tolerant person. I have gay family members who have not been dosowned, and they are welcome in my home and we all get along. They know how I feel about their lifestyle, but they also know that I still love them and we are still family. I do not treat them any differently than I treat other members of the family and in fact, I’d rather hang out with them than with other members of the family.

    When some of us express that opinion (as in defending marriage between a man and a woman on religious grounds without ever saying the word “homosexual”), the tolerant people who rudely disagree make efforts to put us out of our businesses (read the Chic-fil-a boycott) and squelch our freedom of speech and religion.

    I believe civil union was on the table at one time, but it was not enough.

    God will not be mocked. He created them male and female and He created and instututed Marriage. God owns it and not men. Men own the government. Let the men who own and run the government stay out of religion and allow civil unions, and let the religious keep marriage as their instuitution. But that is never enough for those with an agenda. It never is.

    This is why I do not support gay marriage.

    Like

    1. So what if there is a church or a faith that accepts and supports gays marrying?

      Like

  3. For a Christian, I believe that is one too many Inches, as in give them an inch and they’ll take a mile. Leave the unions in the civil realm. Again, it is more about agendas than it is about “happiness” A civil union imparts all the rights the gay community is asking for. Why can gays not be happy with the same rights without forcing people of faith to accept what to them is anathema?

    It is just like condemning the Boy scouts and trying to trample their rights of free assembly with like minded individuals. Why do gays need to be members of the BSA? Are they not free to start their own organization that adheres to it’s own code of conduct, etc.? Buit that’s not what they want. The whole point of gay “marriage” is to force acceptance in religious circles for what, according to some people’s faith is unacceptable.

    If it were about happiness and not agendas, then civil unions would be a fair and acceptable compromise. It is about intolerance for those who disagree. And the intolerance is not on the part of the Christians. We tolerate the gay agenda being foisted upon us by Hollywood, in our public schools, in just about every aspect of our lives, but our religious views find no tolerance where the agenda is being pushed. 30 years ago it was considered immoral and nobody questioned it. I have watched the agenda to norm the behavior do just that and there are no boundaries anymore. It is a line we simply cannot cross, because all the other lines have been crossed in the name of “tolerance” and “anti-hate”, and whatever mcCarthyist term the tolerance police want to use today.

    When I was in middle school and high school. I never even knew what “gay” meant until I was almost out of school. It was not something that anyone ever really thought much about. Now, children in elementary school are learning about it. There is no innocence in childhood anymore, and it’s not just homosexuality that’s being pushed, it’s sexuality in general. We are sexualizing very young children, and that makes it so much easier to norm the immoral behavior. Our society is preoccupied with it. And that preoccupation is being fostered and exploited by those with agendas.

    If it were not agenda driven, I might support it, but I have a moral issue with it, and it is agenda driven, and that’s why I cannot support gay marriage. Civil unions will never be enough for them.

    Like

    1. That’s not what I’m asking. I mean there are religions put there who accept gay marriage and are willing to perform ceremonies. Should the government block them from doing so?

      I oppose forcing Christian churches to accept gay marriage. I oppose force in general. But what about denominations and faiths that accept gay marriage? Should they be prevented from doing so by government force?

      Like

    2. So, klasko, what you really want is to control other peoples’ religion.

      No. GTFO.

      Like

    3. “We are sexualizing very young children, and that makes it so much easier to norm the immoral behavior.”

      No child who grows up on a farm or in farm country is ignorant of sexual reproduction. What you are doing is the damaging thing: Keep kids ignorant and unaware, unable to make informed choices about risky behavior. What you want are ignorant savages.

      Again, NO.

      Like

  4. I understand what you’re asking, Nicki, but here’s the thing: nobody can stop so called “churches” who accept that sort of thing (They are apostate churches and churches in name only and not in paractice); nobody can keep them from doing it. They are already doing it. They will continue to self-identify when they do it. They will continue to perform homosexual “marriages” whether the law allows for it or not. They already do, and you cannot legislate morality. The fact that more and more people engage in immorality of all sorts is disheartening, but they will do it with or without the blessing of the church.

    This is about forcing acceptance and shoving it down the throats of those who object on moral grounds. We cannot accept it without violating our consciences. But that is what such a law would force us to do. Because you know as well as I do, Nicki that passing a law today that makes it OK for churches to perform homosexual “marriages” will 30 years from now be used to force all chruches to perform them, regardless of what their consciences dictate. (case in point: Roe v. Wade legalized abortion. Now we have Obamatax which would cause churches and taxpayers who object to have to sit down and shut up and pay for murder. And medical personnel who object on moral grounds risk losing their jobs if they don’t do it. It only took us about 30 years to go from legalization to forced support for murder.) How long will it be before the government tells those conscientious objectors to homosexual “marriage” to sit down and shut up? Or worse?

    If it is not condoned in a church atmosphere, then there is still a distinction between church and state. No I don’t believe that the government has any business forcing curches to condone it through forced acceptance within a religious framework.

    Make it civil. That’s what the government can do. Don’t call it marriage. It may be a small thing, but It is a separation of church and state which they are so fond of invoking. This causes the apostate churches to self identify and keeps the distinction betweeen church and state. And they can force it down our throats in a civil framework. They are doing it already. The agena wants it’s cake and they want to eat it too.

    Look, I accept the fact that it’s not going away in civil society. Don’t bring it into church and call it good. It is a sin just as scarlet as adultery and murder. There are no degrees of sin. Sin is sin before God. It may seem like a small matter, but it is a huge matter of spiritual import for seriously professing Christians. As much as the notion that abortion is murder among seriously professing Christians. The secularization of our society has eroded the church’s underpinnings in this society, but there are some lines that we cannot and will not cross in the defense of our faith. This is our Alamo on this issue.

    We render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. That is what we would do with Civil Union, but for the sake of conscience we cannot render unto Caesar what belongs to Christ. Marriage as created by God is a reflection of Christ’s relationship to the church. Marriage is holy matrimony. A homosexual union is a mockery of that holy union and drags it through the mud. There is nothing holy about it. The homosexual “union” is an abomination according to all we believe, and passing laws to force churches to accept what is unacceptable does not make it any less so. We already have to endure our children being indoctrinated bin school to accept it in the name of “tolerance”. Just as Hollywood has campaigned for years to indoctrinate the masses into the acceptance of it with their propaganda disguised as entertainment.

    Sorry. As a matter of conscience, I just cannot accept, endorse or condone it in a church setting. I’m not too keen on it in a secular setting either, but I can accept it there. (I won’t endorse or condone it though).

    Like

  5. We may just have to agree to disagree on this one, Nicki.

    Like

    1. Karen, we will agree to disagree here. Yes, there are churches that already perform these marriages, and there are politicians that want to prohibit this and deny recognition to these unions based on religious beliefs. You allow politicians to do that based on Christianity, and you will allow them to do that based on whatever faith is prevalent among politicians 10, 20, 30 years from now.

      You can believe it’s an abomination all you want. I don’t support anyone stopping or quashing your beliefs.

      I do, however, absolutely support equal rights for all people, including ones who find churches to perform their marriage ceremonies.

      And I have a hard time viewing a union between two loving, stable adults as an “abomination.”

      Like

  6. So Called “churches” who believe in it are already doing it anyway.

    Like

  7. BRAVO! Marriage licensing existed in an age past to protect women and children and was necessary. Not anymore.

    Government interference with marriage and family life has been a disaster – but then again, when has government ever really HELPED?

    Stop the insanity. Get government out of the marrying business.

    -Jim+

    Like

    1. Jim, you and I are in perfect agreement there, my friend.

      Hope you are well.

      Like

  8. “Because gay marriage threatens no one.”

    Exactly.

    Every time I ask an anti-marriage-choice person how the marriage of Jake and Ron or the marriage of Anne and Molly threatens their own marriage…. I get crickets.

    Go figure, eh?

    Like

  9. Pave Pusher –

    Animal husbandry is a whole lot different from the way Hollywood is selling sex. I said I would like to see more childhood innocence than ignorance. In what polite company is it appropriate to walk around in a vulva costume and put one on a child? And yet today it is acceptable. But a few weeks ago, even Nicki was a bit uncomfortable with it. Or maybe it was just the anatomically incorrect versions people were walking around wearing that made Nicki uncomfortable. Was that acceptable and appropriate before the sexualization of our culture exploded on the scene? Vulgarity is the new norm these days. And it makes for a so much better and polite society, don’t you think?

    I do not want to control other people’s religions, what I object to is other people trying to control mine. As I said before, my objection is more on the basis of letting the government manage government things and religion handling religious this. When the government gets inviolved, what is permission today evolves to become mandatory less than a generation later. The religions that accept homosexuality as normal already are marrying homosexuals. If the government gets involved, how long will it be before all denominations will be required to perform hiomosexual “marriages”?

    You are not hearing crickets from me. It does not threaten my own marriage, but It does pose a risk to my right to religious expression and freedom of speech, because we have already seen the mile that is taken when an inch is given. Those who disagree with me already have no qualms about trying to shut me up as being an intolerant biggot spewing hate speech. dissent is already not tolerated. Pretty soon, I will be a criminal at the rate we’re going. I never thought I’d live to see this in the United States of America. At least Nicki and I can have reasonable and polite discourse and we can agree to disagree without calling each other names and being rude to each other. I was not rude to you, but you were rude to me, and I’m sure that you felt yourself to be justified in your rudeness.

    Again, I do not care what Jake and Ron or Anne and Molly do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. Why must I be forced to know about it, approve of it, condone it celebrate it like it’s normal, endorse it, or participate in the norming of it and teach my children that it is not immoral and/or allow others to teach them? If it’s nobody’s business but Jake’s and Ron’s or Anne’s and Molly’s then why are they making it everyone’s business? Why don’t they just quietly go about their business and live and let live? If they didn’t start any there wouldn’t be any, but no one can leave well enough alone. It is always how far can we push it? The push will continue until the Christians viiolate their consciences, capitulate and agree with them.

    Like

    1. But a few weeks ago, even Nicki was a bit uncomfortable with it.

      I think “uncomfortable” is not quite right. I think it was absolutely ridiculous and stupid. Damaging to the kid? Probably not – other than his friends endlessly ridiculing him for allowing mommy to dress him in a giant vagina costume!

      Is there unneeded sexualization of kids in today’s society? Sure. I don’t let my daughter out of the house dressed like a whore, but I certainly don’t hide the facts of life from her, nor do I bar her from dating, nor do I forbid my son to date. They are informed and intelligent kids, and they have so far made good decisions regarding sex using the tools I gave them.

      I do not want to control other people’s religions

      But that is exactly what you’re doing when you encourage politicians to pass an abomination such as “the defense of marriage act.”

      what I object to is other people trying to control mine.

      I agree with you. No government should be allowed to define religion, sanction it or control it.

      As I said before, my objection is more on the basis of letting the government manage government things and religion handling religious this. When the government gets inviolved, what is permission today evolves to become mandatory less than a generation later.

      That is what I’ve been saying all along. No government should be involved in marriage. It’s a religious or personal matter.

      Why must I be forced to know about it, approve of it, condone it celebrate it like it’s normal, endorse it, or participate in the norming of it and teach my children that it is not immoral and/or allow others to teach them?

      Karen, you can’t NOT know about it. It’s there. When you see two women walking down the street holding hands, or playing together with their child, or even stealing a small kiss… It’s there. Should they be prevented from doing so because you find it objectionable? Sorry, but there’s no right not to be offended. You don’t have to accept it or even believe it’s normal. They’re your kids. You teach them what you believe is right. But the “why must I know about it?” You don’t have to. Stay home. Close your eyes. Whatever. It’s when people start pressuring politicians to make such behaviors illegal that I have a problem.

      The religions that accept homosexuality as normal already are marrying homosexuals. If the government gets involved, how long will it be before all denominations will be required to perform hiomosexual “marriages”?

      I believe I already said that. The government needs to stay out of marriage. It’s not the place of any politician to sanction or authorize a relationship as “legitimate.” Yes, there are faiths out there that marry homosexuals. Good for them! Let them be happy and stop advocating that politicians forbid it.

      Why don’t they just quietly go about their business and live and let live?

      That’s what they ask of people who insist on ramming legislation such as “The Defense Of Marriage Act” down everyone’s throat.

      If they didn’t start any there wouldn’t be any, but no one can leave well enough alone.

      If they didn’t start what? Demanding equal rights? Wanting to adopt children? Wanting to have legitimate families? Demanding that they be allowed to keep that folded flag when their loved one loses his or her life defending this nation? What is it that they “started?”

      Like

    2. ” Those who disagree with me already have no qualms about trying to shut me up as being an intolerant biggot spewing hate speech. dissent is already not tolerated.”

      Not at all true. No-one is trying to “shut (you) up”. We’re just pointing out where you are being hypocritical, derivative, inventive and vile. You are, of course, free to continue all that as long as you want. Critique is not censorship. Nicki does not seem to be trying to censor you, nor is any government agent or agency. If someone is, please cite to it.

      “Why must I be forced to know about it, approve of it, condone it celebrate it like it’s normal, endorse it, or participate in the norming of it and teach my children that it is not immoral and/or allow others to teach them?”

      No-one is doing any such thing, nor would I approve of it if they were trying to. Seriously, you don’t have to make things up.

      Please note also, that every objection you raise was used against inter-racial marriage. If you are going to do this, at least be original and come up with something less vile and more factual.

      Like

%d bloggers like this: