I've been neglecting my blog, I admit it, but now that I think I finally have a layout that I like, perhaps I will more likely to post.
I have pictures from Halloween, my trip to NYC, and other musings, however, right now, I am still fixated on the fact that my fellow Californians passed Proposition 8, thereby banning gay marraige. California is supposed to be one of the more liberal states in the Union, yet here we are, a bunch of biggots.
That's honestly how I feel. There isn't any acceptable form of bigotry in today's day, unless you hate homosexuals! People with "Yes on 8" signs in their yard might as well have a sign that reads, "Hi - I'm a bigot! Yes on 8!"
In general my view on life is ... if it doesn't affect you or harm anyone else, then WHY DO YOU CARE??? You may not want to marry a member of the same sex, so don't(!), but why does it matter if your neighbor Jim does? It's not harming you, and the signifigance of your marriage isn't "cheapened" in any way. You took vows - so honor them and then the sanctity of marriage will remain so in your home. People spend so much time worrying about what other people are doing and labeling them "sinners" instead of focusing on themselves.
I believe this is an issue of civil rights because I believe that homosexuals don't have a choice - it's in their genetics. And the last time I checked, we don't leave issues of civil rights up to popular vote. It is my true hope that the legal system will overturn the vote and gay people can get married, have babies, throw parties, celebrate holidays ... and the world will be a better, more tolerant, place because of it.
7 comments:
Yes, I completely agree with you. As a new Californian, I am shocked to find out that it is not as liberal of a state that I thought it was. SAD!
After I saw your blog, I set up my own:
bandbgauthier.blogspot.com
You may not want to marry a member of the same sex, so don't(!), but why does it matter if your neighbor Jim does?
What if Jim wants to marry someone of the same sex and the opposite sex at the same time? If there is to be no discrimination based on sexual orientiation or preference, what about the Jims and Janes out there who want to marry a man and and a woman simultaneuously?
If you have no problem with that, you are certainly more liberal that the California Supreme Court was.
We live in a nation in which the VOTE of the MAJORITY is taken seriously. If you're happy with Obama, you should rejoice in this voting thing we do here.
Because the country doesn’t want to legitimize a mental disorder as a normal lifestyle choice. We don’t want predators, whether they be the trusted uncle, little league coach, priest, or boy scout leader to molest children under the guise that it’s “normal”. It’s not normal.
These predators prey on lonely, troubled and confused kids who don’t know anything about sexuality and can be swayed due to pressure. This is the danger of calling their abnormal sexual behavior normal. It legitimizes experimentation in children who know nothing about sex, some are just starved for any adult attention and will go along with being molested.
Homosexuality is a mental disorder triggered in early childhood development, there is no gay gene, there may be a predilection but as of now there is no proof that anyone is “born gay”. Predilection does not mean one is destined to be gay, many of us may have the predilection to be a serial killer, but lack the developmental traumas and triggers that bring out the behavior. “Normalize” homosexuality and you open the door for predators, who can take adolescents with NO predilection towards homosexuality and bring them into the lifestyle with peer pressure, attention and acceptance.
Everything I said will stand up to scrutiny and science from many top shrinks in the country.
Suck on the truth homo activists.
"if it doesn't affect you or harm anyone else, then WHY DO YOU CARE???"
Homosexual 'marriage' harms me because it reduced true marriage to a joke.
There is further harm threatened by the results of declaring homosexual marriage a 'right."
Examples we have already endured in other states:
1. Catholic Charities told to place adoptable kids with homo couples or fold up shop. CC has placed needy kids in families for decades. It is against their long-held moral beliefs to place them with homosexual couples. Faced with the "do it or quit" order, they quit.
2. A Christian wedding photographer was sued for refusing to photograph a lesbian wedding. She lost and had to pay a fine. The case is being appealed, as far as I have heard.
3. Christian churches are being told they rent to everybody or nobody. If they rent to hetero couples who want to marry in their sanctuary, they must rent to homo, although that violates their personal beliefs.
These are just off the top of my head, from memory. With a little research I am sure you can find more.
I am very proud of Californians for this stand.
I see the sense of a "Domestic Partner" status which would include any people who constitute a unitary household long-term, regardless of whether they are sexual partners. For instance, a widowed mother and her adult divorced daughter who live otgether, and plan to go on doing so; two elderly brothers, one of whom is care-giver for the other; two best-friend women, regardless of whether they sleep together.
If they live together long-term and pool their economic resources, they should have certain legal recognitions and protections related to insurance, taxation, and property questions. This makes sense.
What doesn't make sense to be is:
(1) domestic partnership exclusively for people who have sex with each other; and
(2) marriage for people who cannot engage (with each other) in reproductive intercourse.
This is because marriage has always been distinguished from every other kind of relationship, because of the need of children to effectively identify and claim support from their biological parents.
It's about the status and rights of children, not the amors of adults.
Post a Comment