jump to navigation

Non-religous Moral and Practical Reasons For Being Against Gay Marriage March 7, 2010

Posted by Bill in Current Events, Gay marriage.
Tags:
1 comment so far

Ummm

Well there’s……

hmmm

Hate Crime and God’s Judgement January 12, 2010

Posted by Bill in Christianity, Church and State, Current Events, Politics, Religion, Religious Right, Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , , ,
add a comment

Even though the Christian Right and I have several areas of strong disagreements, we do occasionally find ourselves on the same side of an issue.    For example, we both are against Hate Crime laws. 

I am against them because trying to legally judge what sort of ideas and beliefs should be labelled as hateful and what should not creates a small crack in the foundation of freedom of thought and speech.  The really far out ones are fairly easy to judge, but what happens when the views and ideas start to edge more to the grey areas.  Do we really want a precedent for trying to set up limits for those areas?  I don’t think so. 

Awarding a harsher sentence for those whose views we as a nation find hateful in order to recognize the extra harm that these views have done to the emotional and psychological health of the victims also seems wrong headed.  Isn’t being murdered or assaulted enough? 

And does  Johnny being hated and killed because he was gay create that much more psychological and emotional harm than Johnny being killed because George hated his guts?   Hate crimes give the appearance of crimes against some groups being more heinous than crimes against other groups.

What if an atheist is killed because a Christian hates atheists?  Will that be found deserving of being covered under hate crimes? 

What about a Christian being killed by an atheist who hates Christians?   

With hate crime laws we are starting to legally determine which groups are more deserving of protection than others.  Again, not a good idea from my point of view. 

Anyway I really do not mean to make this a post about why I am against hate crime legislation.  Instead I want to comment on those of the Christian Right who are also against hate crime laws. 

Their stand on this issue seems inconsistent with their religious beliefs. 

Christians strive to live up to God’s standards of justice and righteousness (although knowing they cannot attain such perfection).  They believe that society and government should reflect God’s justice and righteousness.  After  all that is the main reason they are against Gay marriage.

However, part of God’s standards though  involve thoughts.  Come judgement day God will judge not only our actions but also our thoughts. 

Matthew 5:28 – But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Now admittedly we are not omniscient as God.  But shouldn’t this mean that the Christian should do the best he or she can within the limits of being human?   

In which case why is the Christian Right against hate crime laws?  Seems almost un-Christian.

Those Darned Gays Ruined My Marriage November 23, 2009

Posted by Dindy in Current Events, Family Values, Gay marriage, Politics.
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

Thanks to homosexuals, I am no longer married to my husband of nearly thirty years. Nor is my daughter actually married to her husband of two years. In fact, she never was married, and Bill and I haven’t been married since 2005.

It all started with those blasted homosexuals who had the audacity to demand the same rights as everyone else in the US– to get married to a single partner of their choice in a mutual relationship in which both parties are of legal marriageable age. Why homosexuals want this right is simply beyond me– being allowed to go visit some sick person on their deathbed isn’t a piece of cake, after all, and anyone who has ever been without health insurance in this country KNOWS that we do a fantastic job of providing health care for those without it.

But for some silly reason homosexuals want to have the same rights as married people so they’ve been demanding the right to get married and have actually been successful in some hotbeds of liberalism such as Iowa and Vermont. Thank the god I don’t believe in that I live in the great state of Texas that doesn’t allow such tomfoolery.

In fact, Texans saw this push for gay marriage for what it was– an attempt to sneak the gay agenda in the back door and to force EVERYONE to marry someone with the same plumbing between the legs. Now Texans KNOW what is right, and one of the things we know is that if perverts are allowed to marry each other, then it’s going to ruin the marriages of all right thinking people.

So in 2005, Texans passes an amendment to make darned sure that any gays wouldn’t go doing some end runs to try to get their sicko practices through the back door so to speak. We banned gay marriage and said that not only would we not do it in Texas, but we wouldn’t recognize it if some queers got married in another state and then tried to come here and say they were married. Uh-uh, no sir. We don’t care what those liberals in Iowa do, they ain’t gonna do it here in Texas.

Except now Barbara Ann Radnofsky, a Houston lawyer and Democratic candidate for attorney general says that Texas went a little overboard and in our zeal to ban gay marriage, Texans managed to ban all marriages in the state.  The problem, Radnofsky says, is this tiny little clause in Subsection B of the amendment which states, “This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.”

Um.

Texas cannot recognize any legal status identical to or similar to marriage? Um. I’m not a lawyer, nor do I even play one on TV, but I can see some fancy schmancy attorney getting up before a judge and saying, “Judge, if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck and since Texas says we can’t have anything that looks, talks or acts like a duck in this state, we can’t have ducks here.”

So there you have it folks. The red necks were right after all– if we start allowing gays to get married it WILL ruin the institution of marriage. They certainly ruined mine.

Hypocrisy Thy Name is Family Values September 15, 2009

Posted by Dindy in Family Values, Politics.
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

It appears that those who opposed the gay marriage initiative in California were right. Gay marriage IS harmful to the institute of marriage. How else to explain the downfall of California Assemblyman Mike Duvall, who not only led the fight against gay marriage in California but repeatedly earned a 100% score from the Capitol Research Institute for his votes on family values issues?

Duvall resigned from office after he was caught bragging about his sexual conquests near a live mike. Duvall now claims he didn’t actually engage in any inappropriate sexual behavior but was merely telling stories. Yeah. Right.

Now obviously Duvall would never have engaged in such behavior if it weren’t for the legalization of gay marriage in California. After all, he has been a champion of family values for many years, and it’s simply too much to believe to think that his behavior is yet one more in a long line of examples of politicians whose personal behavior has fallen short of their political rhetoric (Mark Sanford, Larry Craig, John Ensign).

Am I a bad person for getting more than a giggle out of seeing yet another darling of the Family Values Movement forced to resign because of inappropriate sexual activity? I seldom trust politicians anyway, figuring that they generally will say whatever they think will get them re-elected. But somehow, it is extra sweet when someone who makes a career out of promoting policies that are supposed to be good for the family, ends up being plastered across the front page of the paper for hypocrisy.

It never seems to do any good, however, as those who think that family values means poking their nose into the private business of others continually ignore the frailties of their leaders. Look at the parade of politicians who have espoused the family values line, only to fall when it is found that their own values involve things like picking up gay men in restrooms or bragging about spanking much younger women. Actions speak louder than words, and as long as the darlings of the family values movement continue to show that they are more concerned about re-election than about the actual values to which they pay lip service, I am going to get a good giggle out of them.