Skip navigation

First of all I would like to apologize for my absence. In short I hope to be back and hope to be on more in the future from here on out. I hope to get back into the swing of things and continue to provide you more information on politics, religion, pop culture, and Mass Effect.

Now though something about this issue has always bugged me. The title of the blog simply puts it in the terms that I mean.

Now when I am talking about gays here I am talking about Gays in general, specifically gays as the movement for LGBT and the ones that are trying to get their ‘rights’. As such this blog might be far off on a lot of its claims since I tend to misjudge collective groups, something I am quite happy about. And this also doesn’t work for every single person who chooses this as their sexual preferences. And also I am for the legalization of Gay Marriage, just as a means of getting the Government…any Government…out of our bedrooms and churches. Places where they do not belong.

Now gays want to be married, in a lot of ways they consider it to be their right to be married. And according to the Supreme Court in some instances they just might be right. (Source)

OK that is all well and good. I am wrong. The Supreme arbiter of the term ‘rights’ in this country considers marriage to be a right. And that we can’t argue it or dispute it until a future group of arbiters makes the decision one way or the other…hmmmm.

But that is well-considered, but what I want to know is why? Why do gays want marriage? And what do they want ti for?

Sure they might be religious and I support them if they are and they actually legitimately want to find a church where they can be married and then celebrate their life bond with another human being. Share their lives with them. But marriage is primarily a religious institution. Sharing a couple and making a commitment before God to continue to share your life with them.

And most people who I talk to on this issue says they don’t want to force themselves on the churches, don’t want to force the churches into marrying gays and that they want to just leave them alone to conduct their own affairs. So I have to take them on their word.

Even though I have heard stories where people have sued churches for not marrying them when they were gay or not using their property…so no I am sure it’s all good. And fine….

So gays still have to go to the churches, and the synagogues, and ask for permission to marry. Even when this is a right apparently. And the churches can still say no. Can still turn them away, and can still be as ‘bigoted’ as they want. So is anything really solved?

And most of the people who I talk to aren’t even religious themselves. In the least. Not the gays that I talk to, not the activists who support the LGBT movement, not anyone. In fact religion doesn’t seem to enter into their minds as being apart of the equation. Marriage is not a religious institution and seems to be quite divorced from the issue…no pun intended. And they don’t seem to make any distinction between it and Civil Unions.

Furthermore people have been expressing their ‘love’ for centuries. Within marriage, without marriage, in between marriage, around marriage, before marriage, and after marriage. Now I am not condoning these exploits but people have been sharing love for a long time and marriage does not seem to enter into the equation. Right, wrong, you decide.

And no one in the political main stream in the United States is actively trying to ban…well gay sex. You can go and do anything you want to anyone you want as long as they consent, and as long as the churches don’t have to condone it. The rest is between you and God.

All people seem to want to ban is gays from marrying.

So what do gays want? What are they after?

We all have individual needs and wants. No one is disputing that, not here. But it seems like the LGBT movement as a movement is a powerful political bloc that has somehow convinced a large portion of the American population that if you aren’t one hundred percent for gay marriage then you are some kind of bigoted monster that is worthy of a Hitler or Stalin.

After all the churches still have all the power, you can still express your love in other ways.

So could it be that they are after the benefits?

Can’t you get those without marriage?



  1. Health insurance from your partner’s work. And since civil unions, where they exist, are from States, marriage would mean recognition by other states and federally, for immigration purposes among others.

    Also it is a symbol. Not being allowed to marry is a symbol of being different, and perhaps less. Being allowed to marry is a symbol of equality. More and more equality will follow the symbol.

    Do you not have civil marriage in the US? Straight people who are not religious get married.

    • Good point.

      Good point again. Thouh I am unsure what you mean by ‘more and more equality.’ To an extent I suppose it will be a good thing but to another extent it may not. Take the example I bring up in this blog if more and more equality refers to the ability to be married at church then not sure if I have a problem with it. But if that refers to the ability to force churches to marry someone then that is a no no.

      Yes. As far as I know but I am unsure of the specific legal framework of said things.

  2. The thing is, it’s not about marriage at all. I don’t want to get officially married, but I believe no government should make distinctions of gender in affording its citizens rights.
    There’s no legal contract that requires citizens to be of any specific gender combination except marriage. It’s an absurd concept from a logical perspective. It’s tantamount to saying, sorry sir, you can’t have a limited partnership contract with someone of the same (or opposite sex), limited partnerships are only for _____.

    • Exactly, thank you for posting and you are right from the legal framework the Government should have no buisness is any personal human relationship. Its something I have written before.

  3. The argument against getting government out of the marriage business altogether would certainly seem to have merit if the survival of the human species were something that was not of paramount importance to us as human beings. As a Catholic I could give all kinds of religious reasons why the gay lifestyle and their bid to have society recognize it as a natural use of the sexual act should never be allowed to come to fruition, but certain people would not likely listen to those arguments. There are however also numerous secular arguments that can also be made against allowing gays to marry. The Supreme Court needs to take another look at he Constitution. Nowhere is marriage defined as an inalienable right. It does however point to marriage being defined as a legally recognized institution that exists for one purpose, the creation and raising of new human life. Thus the institution itself and the benefits society through the state chooses to bestow in order to encourage participation in said institution are both extra-constitutional in nature. So the argument that gays are being denied unalienable rights as Constitutionally defined is bogus. The survival of a human society through the natural transmission of new life is a valid vested interest of those selected to have valid civil authority over the people. Without the transmission of new life the society in question will eventually self-extinct. It is therefore in the best interests of said society, through the state, to support the institution that is by its nature best designed for this task, that institution being marriage. Marriage provides the most stable environment for BOTH the production and care of new human life. So when we support marriage it is not in the least exclusionary, as both men and women are allowed to participate in the institution, the only rule though is that it be with each other. We support natural law marriage out of concern for the survival of our society. All that said, NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE, deserves to be treated as less than equal in dignity and deprived of those that really are inalienable rights (for example the right to due process if a crime is committed against someone) just because one chooses to disregard natural law in the use of the sexual act. NO ONE deserves to be bullied either, meaning that if I see a homosexual person being beaten within an inch of his/her life I will defend him (or her as the case may be) and assist him/her in the provision of justice against the perpetrators. I also think also of the precedent allowing this would set. It could be used as a precedent for allowing people engaged in other unnatural sexual lifestyles the same “right” to marry. Agree or disagree that is where I and many others stand on the issue. If you wish to think me a bigot that is your choice.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: