Skip navigation

Oh yes, that  controversial issue, the one that annoys me almost to the point of apathy.  The issue of what rights gays should have to marry or not to marry.

Now out of all the issues that are facing this nation today there are few that are more divisive, and few that have two sides as bitterly entrenched as Gay Marriage.

But I do not think codifying marriage to be between one man and one woman, or legalizing it to where they all can marry and churches can not deny them, is the right way to go.

I have heard similar positions, on other sites, and articles.  But, I first came up with the idea on my own after listening to the Glenn Beck Program last March.

Simply put that Marriage should not be legalized, period.  Especially on the federal level, which is not to say that gays can’t seek any form of union they desire.

The word marriage is in itself  can be viewed as a religious term.  This being said, and as we have the so often incorrectly used separation of church and state in this country, the issue becomes a State Rights issue. Does a state create a civil union, or not. That is for each state to decide, and not the courts.

Now any person or group, that wants to have its members be  joined in any fashion they so choose should have no problem with this, unless of course  it is not about individual rights, but about another attack on the basic foundation of this country.

In short, if you are gay, and want to have all the rights and privileges of marriage, then peacefully campaign in your state for civil unions. Marriage is a religious designation, you can either find a church that will “marry”  you, form your own church, or move to a state that recognizes same sex unions.

For the religious minded, you have the same choice. You can campaign peacefully in your own state to codify the word marriage, and conduct your own lives, and your own church as you see fit. You do not have the  right to impose your views on anyone else. Another of our founding principles is the pursuit of happiness. Everyone has the basic right to that pursuit regardless of any factor including orientation.

From my perspective I constantly look for the solution that will give the most people the most freedom, while keeping the rest of society secure.

And this should not violate anyones rights, or morality.  If you still see Gay Marriage as being wrong then you can still marry whomever you will wherever you will and then lead your life by the best example to try to encourage others to see your viewpoint. You do not however have any right to impose your view and your morality on anyone else.

This is an issue for the individual to decide, and I feel that the best way to give the individual what they want is to present them with the most options that we can.

Advertisements

75 Comments

  1. I like the idea that marriage should be a matter for the church and not for the state. Except for the time being, and most likely well into the future, it IS a matter for both the state and the church (what is it that they say about the church shouldn’t get involved in government, and vice versa?). For me it still comes down to the simple fact that the marriage act in most developed-world countries discriminates against a same-sex couple. This means that gay and lesbian people do not have formal relationship pathways. And God knows what damage that does.

    • But under the first amendment, and several other freedom of choice issues, they have the right to marry or not marry whomever they please. That is the right granted to them because the government cannot interfere in their practices. All I do is reaffirm this fact, since I have read about churches exisisting that do allow for gays to participate with them. Gays can still get married under this system by religious institutions if they want, they just have to find one or form one to suit their needs.

  2. Being an Australian, we don’t have a ‘first amendment’, nor do we have a Bill of Rights, so our rights are defined by legislation. However, I do agree with your overall conclusion that this is a matter ‘for individuals to decide’.

  3. hey! you stole my thunder! 😛

    j/k – I plan to blog about this too but let’s just say we disagree

    the homosexual lifestyle is called “disordered” for a reason……because these lifestyles exist in total opposition to natural law…..which contains the moral precepts that serve as the foundation of our liberty….so that whole moral relativism vs. moral clarity thing still comes into play on this issue

    • I agree with you, in principal. I do not think gays should marry and I am not for legalizing it, or I am not for people just being out there and forcing it on us. That is I think the issue. If people want to do whatever they want with one another, then all the more power to you, I disagree with you, I will tell you to cut it out quite loudly and that the lifestyle is wrong, but it is not my place to take away the option for you to have that lifestyle. That is not for anyone else to dictate through the power of government.

      But I do think therein lies the problem. Because there are certain gays and certain lesbians who force this life style on us, forcing us to watch it and put it all out in the open, and I think this is inappropriate for hetero sexuals, and homo sexuals, we should not have to watch you.

  4. The desire to seek out love and affection from a particular source – i.e. people of your own gender – is NOT a lifestyle. At the least it is exactly that, a deep-seated desire. But to me it is intrinsic to my being, it is firmly etched into my DNA. And if holding hands with my boyfriend in public is seen as forcing my view on other people, then straight people have been forcing their view on me for too many decades to count. I advocate for laws to accommodate natural diversity.

    • I am not talking about holding hands 😛

  5. Phew, I’m glad I get to live another day!

  6. Yeah I agree that it should be up to the individual as to whom they should marry however if you openly allow this …or condone it in general society ….this is where I think it is a slippery slope because it tends to further erode the moral fiber that our country was founded on. Lets face it there comes a point in our culture that what others do, has an impact on our youth and our integrity as a human society. This is the problem with this issue.

    Like second hand smoke can cause cancer in the innocent bystander, so too can having this issue so out in the open and possibly widely accepted and condoned could cause harm to innocent youth who are trying to discover their own moral compass.

    This is the problem with the decline of our nation and this issue is just one in which we have allowed the “political correctness” of our society to remove God and the Bible from the equation of how we operate and set up our societal laws. We know that homosexuality is wrong in the eyes of God. It is cited numerous times in the bible that this is against nature and an abomination. Our country was founded on the moral laws of God and the further we get away from this….removing all things about God from our governmental body that is what is causing problems because people lose perspective on what is truly right and wrong. You have no moral compass, no set of natural laws to follow and so you have everyone running around doing as they please and that can make for a very immoral society. I mean we have people lobbying to remove God from our money, from the pledge of allegiance and trying to remove the 10 commandments from the courts. This is the issue. When you remove God from EVERYTHING you are left with man determining what is right and good and WHAT man has the right to do that?? Who should be the one to say…hey this is right?? The president?? The Senate? The Governors? The Judges?? Who?? How are we going to ever come to agree on these moral laws….because everyone has their own perspective on this. Man cannot come to consensus on what is right and good morally…we have not been able to do it successfully for years because we have such a diverse set of ideals and opinions and deep seated desires. So there comes a time when you have to recognize that it is necessary to adopt a set of moral laws that have been put in place by a higher power and decide to use them as your plum line to base your societal laws. Without it you have disaster.

    And this does not take away the individual privilege from gays and lesbians to be able to enjoy what they want to do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. But does it have to be legalized and/or made official by the church or from any other entity? No!! I just don’t think it needs to be made an accepted part of our culture, it hasn’t been for years and we have functioned fine so therefore I think it should remain as a quiet private matter between two people period. No institution religious or otherwise should be involved with it, because it is more of an “atypical” union and that should be left alone IMO.

    Ok so shoot me now 😛

    • Very intersting, very intersting.

      I do not think its about society or anyone else to ‘condone’ that is not the point here. Because I do not think our society, me, or anyone else will necessarily be any more apt to condone it if it is in this way.

      This will allow for people and institutions to condone it in any way they wish to, or not, to suit themselves. I agree that it is a private thing, as is all sex and relationships, but yet there are people who do seek unions. And there are parts of society that does condone it, and does allow it, and parts of society that or not. Its not up to the government or the society to determine someone else’s morality, on an issue like this, but merely allow people to have the freedoms that they can and to respect, setting up clear lines and boundries. Some will violate those, some will get punished, and some will try and doggedly deny chruches from marrying the people that they should, because they feel that marriage is a right.

      This is certainly an intense issue and there are no easy conclusions, but I think that this is a solution that will allow everyone to speak without fear and be the people that they want to.

  7. So Squirrely, a young gay man or lesbian should be told that there are no formal relationship pathways for them, that it’s best they keep things under the carpet? Is that healthy? Is that compassionate? I’m actually more sensitive to religion than I might sound (and I’m also completely disinterested in queer culture, despite being a gay man myself), but laws shouldn’t descriminate based on gender. And, sorry, I DO want to be accepted, because I’m a productive member of society; who I love should not be a hindrance.

    • Why would making your relationship “formal” make me more compassionate? I have alot of gay friends and I love them as a person and I do not judge them but at the same time I do not feel they are living in the manner God would want them to and I fear they are making a mistake with how they choose to live their life. In other words not in accordance with God’s laws. So I would be remiss as a friend not to point this out to them. If you continue to live “in sin” by pursuing this union you may be causing quite a bit of consequence for yourself and your partner in eternity. So to me by telling you this….by being honest…this to me shows you real compassion…and the truth. Now it’s not me to say you should believe in this. But this is how I believe and to have this as such an open and accepted part of our culture to me could be a problem. I just feel it needs to be left alone as it has been for years. Because the union between same gendered people are more of an “atypical” union and not something that should be made legal or recognized. It’s just more of a personal religious feeling I have on this issue more than anything. So when people don’t see eye to eye on a religious issue that is where you have a problem.

  8. not to mention that natural law tells us the common sense fact that love is unique and exclusive…the homosexual lifestyle seeks to add a sexual connection where it doesn’t belong between 2 friends of the same sex…adding a sexual connection where it doesn’t belong totally rejects this natural law that is written upon the hearts of all mankind….doing so devalues our greatest and most powerful gift, the gift that unites man and woman as one flesh and transmits to society the new life which allows societies to continue….so this love is as unique and exclusive as any other kind you can think of

    we do accept homosexuals as the human beings they are…equal in dignity to any other….should a crime be perpetrated against ANYONE….I will defend them against the crime should I be in a position to do so

    • Amen brother. And I think that is a good opinion on this and really clears up a lot of things.

  9. ….but in the end, marriage is not an unalienable right….it is an institution constrained by the law inherent in the very order of nature itself

    the Judeo-Christian philosophy that drives the laws of our Republic say that we are directed to love the sinner but hate the sin…so while we cannot by law deny ANYONE the most basic of human rights as spelled out in the Constitution, neither can this Republic condone lifestyles that oppose natural law, to do so would create a society based not on the moral clarity that gives us liberty but based rather on the moral relativism that gives society not liberty but license…2 totally different animals

  10. and it is interesting to note that no mention is made in either the Declaration or the Constitution of marriage being an unalienable right

    • nor no other religious or legal documents that I can think of.

  11. Okay, there are now quite a few strands to this conversation, which is great btw, but I’ll try to answer the core. Which might be this: “So when people don’t see eye to eye on a religious issue that is where you have a problem”. I don’t see this as a religious issue, I see it as a human rights issue: for all people to have their relationships recognised regardless of gender. The fact that I’ve shared my life with another man for 13 years does no harm in the world, none whatsoever. But it’s hurtful that the law in my country provides no acceptable way for our relationship to be recognised; quite simply we are treated as second-class citizens. This is not the sort of legal environment I believe is good and healthy for all. I can’t be straight, the same way you can’t be gay – why should I be treated as a second-class citizen because of how I’ve been put together? Didn’t we have this debate around “black people” having equal rights, and women having equal rights. Maybe the solution really is placing all relationships outside the law, but don’t tax offices need relationship law so they rake in more cash?

  12. again…and I will repeat this for as long as it takes…marriage is NOT an unalienable right….it is an institution designed to confirm a very special and unique kind of love……something that cannot exist between 2 men or 2 women….it is impossible…and yes you can be straight…you just have to work on it……there is no “gay gene”…..being gay is NOT intrinsic to our nature

    and our law does NOT treat gays as second-class citizens as they are given all basic human rights as any other person…they have ALL the unalienable rights spelled out in the Constitution of the United States….again one off which is NOT marriage…and yes it does harm society by devaluing our greatest and most powerful act as a mere tool for carnal pleasure between 2 otherwise ordinarily platonic friends…..we as human beings are entitled to liberty, not license, liberty allows us to have all the freedoms we desire whilst being under the necessary constraints inherent in the precepts of the natural world we inhabit

  13. a lot of this though could be rendered moot if we just kicked government out of the private sector

  14. but just as no one is born to be an alcoholic but is habituated into it…so is one habituated into lifestyles that reject the natural sexual complementarity that can only exist between a man and a woman

    think of a puzzle…..you put together a puzzle in order to produce a picture, but in order to do this properly you have to join complementary pieces, pieces that fit together…and man does not fit with man nor does woman fit with woman in the way that only a man can fit with a woman…with the goal of producing the “picture” of new human life, the gift that allows society to endure

  15. Joseph, regrettably you’ve lost me at “yes you can be straight…you just have to work on it”. This statement is plain rubbish and the majority of the world developed world knows it, along with all credible scientific and psychological opinion. I can no more be straight than a horse can croak like a frog. Might I add that my sexuality is more about love and intimacy than anything that might be considered carnal. And, sorry, if the local office of Births, Deaths and Marriages turns me and my partner away because one of us isn’t a woman then it DOES treat some of its citizens unequally, and that’s what I object to.

  16. again….the kind of love of which you speak is a life-giving union of man and woman…..designed to unite the 2 sexually complementary halves of the human race….and again being gay is NOT intrinsic to our nature many credible scientific sources have rejected the notion that there exists a “gay gene”…..there’s a group of homosexual people in the Catholic Church called “Courage”….who recognize the fact that this lifestyle is intrinsically against the order of nature and seek to divest themselves of it….I would suggest speaking to numerous people who have successfully divested themselves of it…and the fact remains that it is impossible for the kind of love and intimacy that can only exist between a man and a woman to exist between 2 men or 2 women…like trying to fit together 2 non-complementary pieces of a puzzle….it just does not work….and deep down homosexuals do recognize these common sense facts…..it is why they are generally unhappy…NOT because they are being denied a right that’s not really a right

    the fact remains that in any free society….you can have all the freedom you want….but neither can sin be legitimized……that sounds fair enough to me…that liberty must necessarily be constrained by a clear sense of right and wrong that can only be found by respecting the natural law which is written upon every human heart…..you might THINK that what you have is natural but it’s not

  17. the lifestyle you lead rejects this natural sexual complementarity that can only exist between a man and a woman in favor of adding a sexual connection to the platonic love that arises naturally between friends of the same sex…..and the fact remains again that we don’t treat our gay citizens as second-class citizens just because they aren’t allowed to marry….the miscarriage of justice would be if gays were being denied their rights as spelled out in the Constitution of the United States of America…again one of which is NOT marriage….marriage from the beginning has always been respected by every civilized society as a natural institution designed to confirm a very special and very unique and very powerful kind of love, the life-giving love that can only exist between man and woman

  18. so here in the States, gays can live, work, play, go on vacations, eat, sleep, etc…..and also to make use of the justice system if a crime is committed against them….these civil liberties that all are entitled to do not depend on marriage….married people must abide by the same Constitution the rest of us do

    sounds fair enough to me…..and it certainly doesn’t sound like they are being treated as second-class citizens

  19. the simple fact of the matter is that you and others like you have been brainwashed by the liberal elite to believe that your lifestyle is just as natural, which is just plain false….the natural law tells us that the sexual act is not only just unitive, but procreative…the homosexual lifestyle by it’s very nature is intentionally closed to the gift of new life

  20. Joe I admire and welcome your opinions on this, they always seem to be insiteful and I am learning quite a lot about a religious/ cahtolic opinion on the subject. Now while I do not one hundred percent agree with everything you say, but it is certainly a learning experience and you make several great points.

    The issue seems to be is gay natural, is it a genetic fluke, are you born gay? I do not believe this and I think it is very unlikely, you may be gentically predisposed to be gay (doubt that too) but you are not gentically born to be gay. It is a choice. A choice that you can change whether you want to be straight or not. I have heard stories about people changing this life style after their personal experience. And even if it were a gene the point is still moot. I know that IF I were gay I would still not choose that lifestyle and be with a man in that manner. It is not my right, and its not a lifestyle I especially want.

    And Joe, none of the things you mentioned are really rights either 😛

    • the things I mention are very much natural rights….life, liberty, property, they are spelled out quite clearly in the Declaration and the Constitution there Foley…..you’d better not be goin’ wonky on me….:-P

      and quite simply if he wants to witness a society that truly does treat its gays as second-class citizens, then he should pay Uganda a visit….provided he actually escapes Uganda with his life….a truly sad society that denies basic human rights simply because certain people have chosen to disregard natural law

        • colfoley
        • Posted March 8, 2010 at 11:13 pm
        • Permalink

        I ain’t goin wonky where am I going wonky?!?!:P

        Indeed. That is a very sad situation too. I mean the thing is no matter what ones personal prejudice it would be crazy, to me anyways, to deny gays the ability to work, shop, or do the same things that straight people do. That means if they know that you are hating on them you lose their buisness, and also when the rest of the people find out you will lose the buisness of many people who do not support your hating on someone because of their sexual preference. When looked at in that light the free market truly is a good regulator of behavior.

        Oooohhhh maybe a blo topic for may! 😀

  21. but in a world where the whims of man are transient, then the only truly free society remains one where man is not governed by these transient whims….but by a constant and unwavering source of self-evident truth, which can only be found in respecting the natural law and the natural liberties it gives all mankind…..a society governed by something transient is simply not governed…..for a government that relies upon these transient whims puts forth laws that are by their very nature transient……which is a poor foundation upon which to build a society….the true way to build one means a system of government that is built upon the solid foundation provided by natural law

  22. and foley I guess the real question is what is hating? I don’t hate gays….I would truly welcome their business in any shop I owned…or I would welcome their paid help in any business I owned…provided such business is not part of a religious institution (which does reserve the right to make employment inside their walls subject to such things)….although even in the Catholic Church there are things gays can do….provided they promise not to teach anything not in accordance with Church teaching…for example teaching in a Catholic school requires a mandate to teach from the bishop of the diocese in which the school in question resides..in order to get this mandate to teach you have to promise not to teach the students anything that is not in accordance with Church teaching….so it is possible that openly gay people could get a job teaching in Catholic schools provided they are willing to abide by that rule

    but if I say owned a shop I would welcome their employment provided they can do the job they are qualified for the job in question

    • Well you clearly do not hate gays, or want them to be ignored, so I was not talking about you specifically. I am just saying from a free market climate, especially with the social climate today, it would be almost suicidal to deny gays, or really anyone else sepcifically based on race, religion, or creed, and the free market can correct that.

  23. and I would ardently defend a gay person from the crimes that places like Uganda have legalized…visiting gratuitous violence upon anybody for any reason…..gratuitous violence can never be justified….nor can stealing a gay person’s property

    but that is what makes us unique here in the good ol’ US of A….our system of government is not based upon the transient whims of man that can only lead to a government of moral relativism….our government is based on the self-evident truths that come from a law that is constant and immutable, one that cannot be redefined by man as this law was not created by man, this law being the law inherent in the very natural order itself…a law we are fully cognizant of as human beings

  24. we have a society where one can have all the freedom he so desires but where crime or perversion cannot be given any legal recognition

    some people say….well animals commit homosexual acts….doesn’t that make it natural….the answer is nope

    it is still just as unnatural….the only difference is we don’t fault the animals….the Biblical basis for this is when Jesus said “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do”….and this is the case in the animal world…they know not what they do….animals have no rational minds….so they are therefore incapable of wrongdoing….we do have rational minds…..in some ways this gift is both a blessing and a curse….because since we do have rational minds we know when we’ve done wrong

    • But that is my exact point with this blog. I am not saying condone it, I am not saying recognize it, but I am saying that this issue is something that the government should not inherently have anything to do with. The government may not particularly like it, I don’t, you don’t, but its not up to us to decide for everyone else. As there are churches out there who allow for this sort of activity to take place. Its not that we as a society are going to condone the issue, just that we are leaving it up to the people to decide based on their own conciounce which is part of our culture. I feel anyways. Sure, you have a point, it violates natural law, but then choice comes in. And they can chose to be as unnatural as they want, as long as they do not force that behavior on us, or force us to recognize it, where I am saying you do not have to recognize it at all.

  25. quite simply put though…we as humans know better because of our gift of rational minds…so we are morally bound to create a system of government that establishes a clear distinction between right and wrong…and this can only be done by the light of natural law…..this constant force of nature

    if you’re trying to use an equation involving a constant such as Planck’s Constant and you’re not getting the value you’re supposed to get…the answer is not to redefine Planck’s constant….you’d get laughed out of academia for even trying…the answer is to recheck your calculations….so is natural law the Planck’s constant in the equation of procreation

  26. I’m not saying you don’t have a point foley…..this issue would be pretty much rendered moot if we as I said kicked government completely out of the private sector……this would include such things as taking property transferring out of the hands of government as well and letting a final will and testament be good enough for transfer of property…as it stands now property transfers need to be recorded at the county clerk’s office….this is mainly so that they know who to make the property tax bills out too….if we switched completely to a consumption based tax and did away with income and property taxes….this would I think eliminate the need for property owners to record their property at the county clerk’s office

    • Well that really is another issue entirely. And yeah you are right about the taxes. But information is power, and now I think that government should not have too much information on you but regardless having information on who does buisness with who is I think a good thing, out of property transfer and stuff.

      But this really does not have anything to do with the gay marriage debate, imo, and I am also not for gettin government out of everything totally, they need to be there, and they need to make sure no one steals, cheats, enslaves, or takes away someones life. That is the proper roll of government, especially at the state level.

  27. this would create the necessary environment to have all sexual lifestyles treated as private matters I think…where gays would be free to find a church willing to “marry” them….and where individual people would reserve the right to decide whether or not to treat such marriages as valid….in this kind of environment if a Christian hotel owner refuses to lease their honeymoon suites to gay couples, the gay couple would then be free to find a hotel that will

  28. all I was doing was trying to point out to Nigel that the way I and others think is not the hateful way of thinking he makes it out to be

    • Well I know its not 😛

  29. and like I said all you need as an example of a society that actually does hate gays is Uganda…a society that actually jails and even executes gays

  30. and foley you know that but I don’t think Nigel does….LOL

    • And I do not think we can convince him otherwise, I certainly hope I am wrong, I want to be wrong, and if I am I want a tongue licking from him to the contrary. I mean I wish he was here making a comment or two in light of all that has been said :P. And its true, I think that the religious perspective has been greatly slandered by media, by gays, and by other people. And if they think they have a right to marry then I think I would be pissed too if I felt someone was preventing me from having rights, but the fact of the matter is I do not know of one document that does give gays those kinds of rights. I mean I do not even think the soviets did that 😛

  31. if it were up to me I would declare war on Uganda for the way they treat their citizens

  32. course I suppose there are other reasons that the property needs to be recorded at the county clerk’s office in the proper name…it’s so that the person who owns the property can validly say it’s his for law enforcement purposes …and I suppose if a gay partner left his surviving partner his property, it wouldn’t constitute a violation of natural law to get the name changed on the deed at the county clerk’s office…marriage wouldn’t have to enter into this at all

    • exactly. And neither does sex. You do not have to have sex to seal a deal…well at least in this culture…others maybe 😛

  33. ahhhh..I think I see why wordpress has been acting slow….got a “server could not be found” hiccup when I tried to post that last comment….LOL

    • Because of us and our comments I think 😉

  34. but basically what I nmeant by that last comment is that getting a name changed on a deed doesn’t have to involve marriage or formal unions of any kind….all that should be required for that is the last will and testament and other things like death certificate

  35. and LOL..probably….:-P

  36. I think the remaining question is should gays be allowed to adopt….the solution of getting government out of the private sector could work here too to render the question moot…..get government out of the adoption industry and let the various private adoption agencies control who they adopt the kids out to…with minimal government oversight of the “make sure the agencies in question aren’t committing any crimes” variety

    • you will get no arguments outta me:P

  37. however from my standpoint my stance on marriage ties in with adoption….I do think that children do better when raised in heterosexual households simply because they then grow up with the correct understanding of natural law…but as I said since adoption is a personal choice and not an unalienable right government should get out of it…..which would create an environment where if a Christian/Jewish/Muslim adoption agency won’t adopt a kid out to a gay couple (and in the case of the Muslim one the couple might be lucky to escape with their lives if the Muslims running the agency happen to be Wahabbist….:-P) then the gay couple is free to seek out an adoption agency that will…perhaps one run by pagans, for example or Buddhists

    • Indeed.

      though another issue that alot of what we are talking about is the Federal government. States have more power to do more things to and for their people, just throwing that out there, I do not think that effects the debate because I still think state governments should also be incredibly limited in power.

  38. so I guess there is a way the debate can be rendered moot just by simply advocating that the government stick to facilitating commerce (not being commerce) and providing for public safety and defense….though it does bring into question gays and military service…..some believe the “don’t ask don’t tell” thing should be repealed….I think it should stay in place….this is due to the nature of military service….due to its very nature you have many people of the same sex showering together, bunking together, sharing foxholes together….the soldiers have enough on their minds without having to worry about advances from open homosexuals….this is why the “don’t ask, don’t tell” thing exists…it basically says the homosexual person should leave his lifestyle at home and keep his (or her) mouth shut so as not to creep out any of the buddies he/she showers with, bunks with, or shares a foxhole with

    • Well my policy on don’t ask don’t tell is that its not the military business to know what sex I am, sex does not effect how I fight a war and that is just as true with homosexuals and heterosexuals as well. Sex does not effect combat, unless of course you are distracted by it but that is also an issue that would exisist whether you were gay or straight.

  39. so that sounds fair enough to me…that for military service keep any deviant sexual lifestyles you may be partaking in to yourself so that you don’t creep out your comrades-in-arms

  40. and actually Foley all governments at all levels should be limited in scope to just sticking to facilitating commerce and providing for public safety and defense

    • I think that there should be some, very limited, public education, handled by the states only. And not the fed, also if the states want to do a form of food stamps or limited public wellfare then they should be allowed to do so. I think that should mostly rely on private charities and be very limited in course, and if you get to irresponsible I will move. Or vote you out so a better result can be reached.

  41. I think that’s the purpose of “don’t ask don’t tell” though…..to just have everyone leave their sexual preferences at home unless asked by a curious comrade

  42. I think though that governments should leave public welfare and public education to private non-profit schools too…..kicking government out of these industries too would help more to render this debate moot…basically because of what I’ve said before regarding true charity….which oddly enough I haven’t made a blog about yet….maybe this weekend

    • good topic. actually I have a topic of a blog that either you or I could do.

  43. as far as don’t ask don’t tell…I think the purpose is to allow the freedom to basically if you suspect one of your comrades is gay….don’t ask….LOL

    • I do not think I would 😛

  44. so I think it’s purpose is to allow gays the freedom to serve as long as they keep to themselves….heterosexuals too….leave family life at home in other words

  45. ROFL….you and I…tag team bloggers….LOL!!!!

    • Well if I ever do get my own show, even if its a pod cast thin I would be more then happy to put you on as a guest. Though maybe you should do somethin a bit more…official?:P If that is even the right word LOL

        • Joseph
        • Posted March 9, 2010 at 2:23 am
        • Permalink

        I don’t know how much more official I can get….LOL

  46. the most official thing I plan to do is seek office as a notary public…:-P

  47. As I said, guys, you lost me at “yes you can be straight”. But, wanting to give you another chance, I kept reading, but was floored by this: “if I owned a shop I would welcome their employment provided they can do the job they are qualified for the job”. It’s impossible to have a rational discussion with the Flat Earth Society.

  48. heehee….that was actually a poor choice of words on my part Nigel….I was trying to say that if I owned something like a shop and a gay guy/girl was applying I would hire them provided I’m not already full up with employees and provided they have the qualifications and experience necessary for the job in question….but for some reason it didn’t come out right…LOL

  49. and it is possible to divest yourself of lifestyles that are opposed to the order of nature and embrace ones that are…by no means is it an easy process….it’s similar to trying to overcome an addiction…but it can be done…there are many examples of it being done….but you do have to have the will to change

  50. I was not aware that gay marriage or giving gays working opportunity had anything to do with geography.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: