oped: Gonna be blunt here..there is I repeat no genetic link/DNA code linking homosexuality as being born that way...the only exception would be the very rare case of hermaphrodites...'having both physical sexual parts in one body' #JustaFact Jack, they are the only exception to the rule in nature that is proven! Therefore they are entitled to the choice of which sex they want to be! #TrueTransgenders So for the remaining 3% of the world population that prefer homosexual relations (sexual fetish) to hetrosexual relations [#Choice] I say to you...have at it I could care less what consenting adults do in private just don't tell me you are entitled to *Special Treatment* and try to force me to accept your choice I will not bend...do your thing and I will do mine..leave me the F' alone and I will leave you the F' alone...live and let live...get off the marriage coat tails to try to legitimize your personal fetish...marriage is between one man one woman in order to pro-create and establish a foundation to raise children in the normal sense...being that homosexuals cannot pro-create together!
Don't even go to the challenge that hetrosexuals marry without ever having/wanting children...that argument won't fly...after all there are no guarantees that birth control is 100% effective unless there is a medical problem... Leave preachers,bakers and candlestick makers the hell alone...it is there choice on who and what they celebrate and who they serve according to their religious/personal beliefs..as is yours...find those who celebrate your fetish within your own community to serve you on your day of joining celebration...but the bottom line is it still does not qualify as a marriage which has been defined for thousands of years! Thats my story and I'm sticking to it!
by: the Common Constitutionalist
Broaching the topic of same-sex marriage seems to render most on both the right and left apoplectic.There’s of course the radical LGBT groups who won’t be satisfied until every church and religious institution (save for Islam) bows to their desires and is forced to bless the union of anyone and anything they feel fit to join in unholy matrimony.
There are the religious, steadfast in the belief that God only intended for marriage to between one man and one woman. No matter what the radical groups (or the courts) try to foist upon them, they will not back down, nor surrender their faith.
Then there are those, like me, in the middle who believe that one should be able to marry whomever you wish. If two women want to marry, go ahead – two guys, knock yourself out. I don’t care so long as you don’t infringe on my religious belief that it’s improper. Just as I don’t care if you marry, why should anyone care if I think it’s improper?
So go ahead and get married. Just don’t use the power of government to force someone to marry you, make you a cake or provide flowers. Unfortunately this is the way it is these days. Government, as it does with everything, has wormed its way into the business of marriage and now, as it always does, has wrested control of the whole process.
So what can be done about it? That’s easy – get government out of it. It’s the sure fire remedy for almost everything, so why not marriage. No government – no controversy.
As it turns out the state of Oklahoma is attempting to do just that.
Sam Rolly at Personal Liberty quotes Oklahoma state Rep. Todd Russ saying “the legislation is intended to end controversy over gay marriage in the state. Marriage was historically a religious covenant first and a government-recognized contract second. Under my bill, the state is not allowing or disallowing same-sex marriage. It is simply leaving it up to the clergy.” In other words, the state of Oklahoma will be out of the marriage business.
So, you might think – controversy over – everyone should be happy. We should all know better than that. Homosexual activist group Freedom Oklahoma (FO) is against the bill.
Troy Stevenson of FO said that the legislation “puts all couple who plan to marry in Oklahoma at risk of being denied hundreds of federal legal rights and protections. The federal government and other states will not be required to acknowledge these proposed ‘marriage certificates.’” Notice he doesn’t say “will” lose rights – just that they may be “at risk.” Neat trick.
But that makes no sense. Putting aside his claim of “hundreds of protections,” (he probably just picked a number and threw it out there), the bill states that these marriage certificates and affidavits of common law marriage, once filed with the county clerk, would be treated as a legal marriage license. The outcome would be no different than if it were issued by the state.
And as Reason.com correctly points outs, “each state already has its own marriage certificate process anyway.” All 57!
This bill makes perfect sense and renders the lefty activists arguments moot.
And this is what they are really afraid of – that the increasingly conservative state legislatures across the country might pick up on this “get the government out of our business” proposal and run with it, possibly finding other facets of our lives to unshackle. Solving a problem without government is antithetical to the left.
This, like everything liberal and progressive, is about control and nothing else. To the left, progress is supposed to mean ever more government control – not less.
No comments:
Post a Comment