Friday, March 1, 2013

Changing the Definition of Marriage is NOT a Civil Rights Issue!

Let me be clear about one thing, and that is that I'm not homophobic. If two women or two men want to engage in sick perversions within the privacy of their own home, well, that's their business. So long as they're not grossing me out by holding hands or smooching in public (or worse), why should I care? (Aside from the fact that this type of depravity makes Jesus cry).

That said, I agree with those who believe marriage is between one man and one woman, and that we should not be changing the definition of marriage to appease the homosexuals. Civil unions, I suppose, are an acceptable compromise, but I strongly oppose Obama's desire to force churches to perform homo weddings.

Of course this kind of thing is what you'd expect from the atheist Christian-hating Left. Their dear leader also decided to force Catholic institutions to pay for birth control under the health insurance policies they provide for their employees, in a clear violation of church doctrine.

While I'm not Catholic and have no problem with married couples using birth control if they want to be intimate and not worry about unplanned pregnancies, I am strongly opposed to Catholic institutions being forced to violate their beliefs. The Liberal fascism of the Hussein administration is truly mind blowing.

What doesn't make sense to me is why such a large percentage of the Hispanics, who are largely Catholic, voted for Democrats that spit on their religious beliefs. I can see why the Mexicans who are here illegally voted for Hussein, but what about the Hispanics who have lived here for generations? I don't think this passes the smell test.

In any case, I was talking about the gays getting "married", and why I'm opposed. Soon the Supreme Court will be weighing in on the issue. The Hussein administration argues that dudes marrying other dudes and chicks marrying other chicks is a "civil right", but how can this be?

Arguing that sodomy is somehow a "civil right" is beyond ridiculous. Hopefully the Conservatives on the court (plus Kennedy) will stand up for what's right and decide to keep the definition of marriage intact and as-is.

TLB #17


  1. I agree with you on the birth control thing (it's still 9 bucks at Target and Walmart and free for the poor at clinics) but I just don't see the harm in allowing gays to marry....Hell, I might even go as far as to say that the heterosexuals have done the biggest damage to it (the institution of marriage).

  2. .

    "Aside from the fact that this type of depravity makes Jesus cry"

    Now you are talking for Jesus?! Really? Just where did the Jewish Rabbi say anything on the subject of homosexual marriage (chapter and verse, please)?


    Marriage is an economic decision made between people; has been this way since forever. Some traditional biblical societies allow men to have more than one wife, concubines, and slaves.

    Do people have the right to decide for themselves, who they will marry?

    Ema Nymton

  3. I go by what's in the Bible. God says homosexuality is an abomination (Leviticus 20:13), not me. As a Christian I don't argue with God. So, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree, Mr. Hart. In any case, thanks for stopping by and commenting.

    And Emma, I'm not "speaking for" Jesus. God says homosexuality is a sin, so I think we can rest assured that Jesus agrees. Thank you also for stopping by and commenting. All views are welcome on this blog (even wrong ones).

  4. Also, marriage is not an "economic decision", it is a union sanctioned by God and the church. And men CAN decide what women they want to marry, and women can decide what men they want to marry. In most states same sex unions are not legal, so no, the gays do not have the same "right" to marry (or even form a civil union with) who they want.

    btw, it just occurred to me that Will agreed when I said that the Hussein administration forcing churches to cover birth control was wrong, so it baffles me why he'd say forcing churches to marry gays is OK. Maybe he was thinking of civil unions?

    Let the gays have civil unions and leave the definition of marriage alone (don't go against God by saying a gay union is a marriage).

    1. .

      Marriage is an economic decision sanctioned by the state to simply legal issues over property. Been this way since long before 'Adam and Eve'. (Even your holy books recognized this point. Ask Moses if you don't believe me.)

      As for your desire to live in a religious/theocratic state blindly following outdated 'holy' books and documents written for backward middle eastern desert tribes, maybe you need to move to Iran.

      Ema Nymton

  5. Civil unions is fine and if the two people wanted to say that "we're married" that would be fine, too.......Also, I'm looking forward to more of you versus Ema. That could be very interesting!

  6. I navigated to this blog after reading a comment by Barlowe on Will Hart's blog. In his comment Barlowe asked if (in the comments of mine that Will deleted) I used profanity -- like I did on dmarks' blog. For the record I submitted no comments to dmarks' blog that contained profanity.

    I have no idea why dmarks is claiming that I swore on his blog, but both he and Will have a history of inventing "facts" about people they don't like. Here Will insults someone whose ID is "Clif", and when Clif calls him on his nonsense Will claims he knows that everything he says is true due to a "behavioral assessment" he conducted on Clif (and he thinks I'm crazy).

    But, seeing as you're a Conservative like both of them, I'm sure you won't have any problems with them making up disparaging "facts" about you.

  7. w-dervish, thank you for taking the time to warn me about these bloggers, but both dmarks and Will Hart have made it clear that they don't want to deal with you on their blogs, and I'll honor their desire not to have to engage you here on my blog. Consider this a friendly warning – you are welcome to comment here as long as you stay on topic and refrain from baiting dmarks or Will.

    Ema, I wasn't discussing marriage AS SANCTIONED BY THE STATE. I was discussing marriage as sanctioned by the CHURCH. Churches should not be forced to perform gay marriages. Sodomy is a sin according to the Bible. In regards to the rest of what you wrote -- I'm not a Muslim and therefore have absolutely no desire to move to an Islamic country.

    Will, I agree with your comment. Let gays have civil unions and leave the church and God out of it.