RSS

Category Archives: Homosexual

Libertarian Gay Marriage

When your humble blogger takes simple Political Spectrum tests, he lands somewhere close to Libertarian and Conservative.  Maybe it’s my Conservative Religious roots that plant me firmly in the anti-Gay Marriage camp.  I find it hard to read the Bible literally, be a Christian, and not come down on the side that Homosexuality is indeed wrong.   Trust me; I’m conflicted.  However, we live in the world we live in, and there is a subsection of the human race that finds themselves physically attracted to those of their same sex.

To that end, many homosexuals want to get married.  Lawsuits have been filed, polls have been taken, State Supreme Courts have weighed in, and States have voted.  However, the Libertarian in me and many others asks ‘why should government be involved in marriage; we are all about freedom’.

https://i0.wp.com/patterico.com/wp/wp-content/images/slimly-reject.JPG

Hopefully, this bit of discussion will assuage the conflict between my Libertarian and Conservative alter egos.

It seems to me a true function of the American government is to protect citizens from many and varying assaults.  The government is tasked with protecting  our borders, protecting our technologies through patents, protecting our ability to engage in interstate commerce.  To engage in such protection, words (with definitions) are strung into sentences, paragraphs, contracts, and laws.  If the definition of a crucial word in one of the contracts or laws is suddenly changed, the validity and meaning of the contract or law is void.

If I sign a contract to provide housing to a group of people, but the government allows the definition of the word ‘housing’ to change to ‘a stool under a cedar tree’, then the government has not protected the people for whom the contract was signed.

Same for the unborn – the government has allowed the definition of ‘human life’ to be changed such that an unconscious human life inside (and sometimes outside) the womb can be killed.

Now, homosexuals want to have the government remove this protection from the word ‘marriage’.  The claim is that the relationship between a homosexual couple and a heterosexual couple are the same.  However, the definition of marry is/has been/was…

Google Books Noah Webster Dictionary

If you look up Matrimony…

There you have it. The definition of ‘marry’ and ‘matrimony’ from the 1892 Edition of Noah Webster’s “Dictionary of the English Language” as found here.

So, to allow for homosexuals to marry, the Government must change the definition of Marrying / Marriage / Matrimony.

The question is, do we have a government that stands up for the contracts and laws under which the citizens have labored?  Or, do we have a government that will change such definitions to suit the will of a vocal minority of the governed?

And, if the government can change such a definition, what other definitions will the government change?

But to equate Homosexual marriage and Heterosexual marriage would have to mean that the relationship is greatly similar.  And, I continue to note the fact that only the Heterosexual relationship allows for natural procreation and the successful continuation of the species.  That IS the major impetus for advent of marriage.  It is a special condition of the committed relationship of Heterosexual Marriage that elevates the relationship (and the term) above what can be found in Homosexual relationships.

Removing the continuation of the species from the relationship of marriage is akin to removing the roof and walls from a house and still calling it a house.

If you put a Married Couple on one island; two ‘married’ men on another island; two ‘married’ women on another island… …only the island with the Married Couple has any chance of procreating and surviving.

That makes the relationship different! …and special.

(Certainly, heterosexual couples can procreate outside of the institution of matrimony.  But, we are talking about government recognition of marriage and the definition of words here.)

 
1 Comment

Posted by on February 16, 2011 in Abortion, Homosexual

 

Tags:

Homos

I watched a bit of the movie “Joe Dirt” today.  Many of my friends thought it to be a great movie as do I.  The movie was shown on the leftist Comedy Central channel where they make cartoons out of a Republican president and his Cabinet and employ such Left-leaning Republican bashers as Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.

I’m sure the station thinks of themselves ad edgy and hip and out-front on various issues and pushes the envelope on language and content on a regular basis.

Words like bitch, ass, butt, bleep-head, mother-bleep-er are heard from the stand-ups on a daily basis.  South Park and others take pot shots and throw bombs in every episode.

So, it was much to my surprise that the word “Homos” was bleeped from the Joe Dirt Movie today.  In the scene, ‘Dirt’ says several times, “You like to look at homos naked?”  And each time, the word ‘homos’ was bleeped.

Here’s the original clip with ‘Homos’ included.

Shortening Homosexual into Homo-Sexy is just fine for Stephen Colbert.

Another, in The Word, we have the Homo Sapien Agenda.

The usage of Homos in Joe Dirt is certainly no more offensive than the Homo in the Homo Sapien Agenda!

Guess Comedy Central isn’t afraid of the President and the full force of the U.S. Government; but they are afraid of a few Homos — I mean, bleeps.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on February 5, 2011 in Homosexual

 

Tags: , ,

Do Tell

60% of combat Marines surveyed felt it was inappropriate to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.  As we just ignored the will of 3/5 of our combat Marines, I have just a couple of quick questions regarding the repeal of the 1993 Don’t Ask Don’t Tell law that prevented gays from serving openly in the military:

1.

Men and Women will now be subjected to showering and living with persons who may find them attractive in a sexual nature.  Gay men will have the opportunity to ogle heterosexual men found attractive.  Female homosexuals will have the same bonus in their barracks.  This may be no difference from what has occurred over the past 17 years, but now the troops will know for sure that the man/woman on the other side of the shower finds their sex to be attractive for anal, oral, or product-assisted sex.

The obvious question is… …will this benefit be restricted only to the gay men and women that join the armed forces?  Or, will all service men and women be given the same opportunity to shower and live with the sex to which they are attracted.  And, if integrated showering / living  for heterosexual man / homosexual man as well as heterosexual female / homosexual female is not a problem for the military, then why would it be a problem for heterosexual males and females to shower / live together?

Remember, God (or Mother Nature if you prefer) made the plumbing to work for heterosexuals — not homosexuals.

2.

Many recruits joined the Armed Forces, with DADT in effect, under the assumption that they would not be expected to shower / live with homosexuals.  They may find homosexuality morally repugnant or religiously inappropriate.

Will such troops be given the opportunity to leave the Armed Forces with Honorable Discharges?  Or will their free expression of their right to abhor homosexuality be met with reverse discrimination?

I haven’t read the legislation or heard anyone discuss these questions as we have approached the vote that was taken yesterday.  And, since we ignored the will of 3/5 of our fighting Marines when deciding the issue, I wonder if we ignored these issues too.  Answers and replies are welcome.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on December 19, 2010 in Heterosexual, Homosexual, Military

 

Tags: ,

I’m Heterosexual And I’m Going To The Prom

I went to my first prom in 1980.  I did not find it necessary to announce that I am heterosexual.  If gay, I doubt that I would have announced such in a school that forbade gay prom dating… …unless I wanted to cause a flap.

Lesbian Teen Sues To Force School To Hold Prom

So, the school canceled the prom instead of changing the rule to allow gay couples to attend.  And, we’re suing for an affirmative injunction to force the school to hold the prom — a standing that will be hard to prove.

Thoughts:

It’s interesting to me that, at her age, she can make the choice to be Lesbian, which is an astounding decision for her age.  She’s not mature enough to drink, vote, join the armed forces, be a state representative, can not make the choice to have sex with a 25 year old or 52 year old, but she can determine her sexual preference.

Another thought is… …what if one of the boy’s had a nice white sheep for a girlfriend; would that be his ‘free expression’ and okay w/ the ACLU et al?  If not, then where do you draw the line?  Multiple partners?  I’m certainly not equating homosexuality with bestiality, but it is a ‘slippery-slope’ argument.  If we allow inter-racial and homosexual couples, why do we draw the line there?  Shouldn’t we allow multiple partners (ala former Mormon rules), tree lovers, a girl and her tricycle?

This is a perfect example of why the federal government should not be involved with school in any way.  States must be the highest level of control and more choice needs to be available to handle such situations.  Vouchers would allow people to go to private school.  She could choose a school that welcomes homosexuals and others could choose differently.

You know — Freedom.

But government is not and never has been about freedom.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on March 13, 2010 in Heterosexual, Homosexual