To a kinder and gentler anon, I don't have a problem per se with gay people. You can love and have sex with whomever you choose. But you should not ever demand a change in a definition based solely on love and desire because, a) those things change and b) it really is a slippery slope to continue to change the definition beyond just two people. A society has the right to define for the protection of society the definition of marriage. Did you read it? It is for the protection of society. It is also for the protection of children and should not be lost in translation of "rights".
Also, I should not be forced to deem a lifestyle as more valid or equal to another just based on the fact that gay people want me to. I don't think that the lifestyle of drugs is a good or equal lifestyle. I don't think prostitution is a good or valid or equal lifestyle. These life styles are damaging to the individuals who participate and damage society. Look at a drug invested neighborhood and tell me if you would totally move your family there before there is a great change away from the lifestyle? I think not because responsible people recognize a problem even if it is genetically inclined to affect someone like alcoholism or drug abuse.
Homosexuality has become politicised to the point that the only right view is that homosexuality is equal too or better than any other lifestyle choice and you are damned if you think otherwise.
And with regard to G's choice I will say that we can go all day with what ifs. What if she gets meningitis in school that kills her because someone chose not to vaccinate their own kid? What if she catches the new flu H1N1 because of our porous borders? What if a psycho with a knife or gun goes into her daycare or school? Every one's choices have consequences that affect not just his own self but others too. What ifs are nothing other than situation ethics to make someone believe against the moral authority of this world.
Oh and the moral authority is not mine and is not me (thank goodness). I would prefer a lot less restrictions on me personally but I will be darned if you are going to do something wicked or harmful to me with your less restrictions. Laws are not there to give people rights and entitlements, they are there to keep you from killing me or abusing me in one way or another.
See that is what situational ethics does, it puts the focus all on yourself. It puts your own personal rights and entitlements above truth and above other people's rights. Now, your own personal rights stop right at the end of my nose, so to speak. You have all the rights you want but when those rights interfere with my life then you must curtail your rights and that works both ways. And I will say it again, marriage is not a right, never has been and never should be.
And I will say this, parenting is not a right either. It is easy for some to become parents but it isn't a right. Like I said, I may not agree with the parenting styles of some but as long as the child is not being neglected or abused there is no complaint. I don't agree that a woman with 6 children should have octuplets via invitro but as long as she can care for them in a healthy way best of luck to her. But I digress.
Yes yes I know the arguments that white and blacks couldn't marry and how wrong society and the church was on that issue and I agree they/we were wrong. There was abuse of the Bible's definition of "unequally yolked" all over the place. But gay marriage is very different and homosexuality is handled very differently in the Bible. It is classified as one of many different sins period.
I know my last post was harsh to mean anon. I probably could have been a bit more graceful in my retort. I also know I open myself up to a lot by blogging but he didn't attack me only. He attacked me through my child and I don't open her up to evil treatment. Still though I should forgive which is difficult for me to do (which is a sin y'all.)
By the way, there is no point in my listing all of my sins for you because of the sins of omission I would forget or not know to list half of them. And there is no point in you pointing out my faults and sins because I know me better than you do so my list would be Oh So Much Greater than anything someone reading this blog can come up with.
And you know what? You can believe whatever you want about gay marriage. It is a free country, and you can even vote to change the definition if you wish, but do it legally through the people not the judges. Get it on a ballot then accept the vote. If it is really states choice then California declared it with Prop 8, quit fighting it. Otherwise you show yourself as an entitlement victim and dishonest in the rhetoric like Perez was in claiming that it should be left up to states to decide. And if it is states right to choose it then don't force it on other states.
You don't have to agree with me. But at least be honest in the discussion. Attacking anyone who doesn't view your position the same is not going to get your point made. It just pisses people off, you know? Please disagree with me in clear concise non-name calling, non-racist comments about my kid, terms. I will respect it. Comments will be published even if we disagree unless they are like the anon comment in the last post.
Stick around for tomorrow because I am posting Bishop Harry Jackson's article about Ms. California. I think you will appreciate it whether or not you disagree with her. I will give links tomorrow about it.