Same sex marriage social justice warriors have forced the gay lifestyle out into the mainstream, where citizens are constantly and consistently bombarded with gay marriage stories, opinion pieces, and advocacy. Now one, Brian Moylan, wants everyone to butt out. Well, after totally discussing his gay life
Please Don’t Make Me Get Gay Married
We didn’t need anyone’s seal of approval before — and we don’t need it now
The first time I heard the question was a year ago at my brother’s wedding, an occasion where such coaxing is commonplace. “When are you and Christian going to get married?†asked a well-meaning aunt whose daughter married another woman several years previously. “I know it’s legal in New York. Wouldn’t it make your mother happy?â€
Weddings always make my mother happy, so I have no doubt that it would, but I always fancied myself not the marrying kind. Like I do to everyone who asks about my and my boyfriend’s plans on making honest men out of each other, I reminded my aunt that while it might be legal in our state, it wasn’t legal in the rest of the country, so it just didn’t really matter all that much and would probably make everything more complicated that it needed to be.
So, gay marriage, gay lifestyle, gay marriage, all sorts of people yammering about it, Supreme Court decision forcing it on the entire country, lots of discussion on the subject, especially as it relates to him and his boyfriend (significant other?), everyone must comply and Believe in it, but, he doesn’t want to get married, pictures of gays kissing under gay banners, yada yada yada, Brian ends with
Aunt Bunny and Mary Ellen worked out the definition of their own relationship and were committed until they each passed away. Christian and I have done the same thing, and I hope that what we have will be as real and long-lasting as what they did. We’re happy to have the right, and we’re also happy to not exercise it. We didn’t need anyone’s seal of approval before, and we don’t need it now. Maybe that will wear off, as gay marriage becomes more of the norm, and the outlaw appeal of opting out loses some of its cache. But right now, just because we’re able to do it doesn’t mean we have to and doesn’t mean that we want anyone pushing their strictures upon us. We’ve worked out just how we want our relationship to work, and, frankly, our covenant is none of your business.
Interesting. On a personal level, Brian just spent paragraph after paragraph telling us all about his covenant. On a national level, SSM SJWs spent, and will spend, oodles of time making their covenant the nation’s business, whether we want it or not. Brian, and the rest of the SSM SJWs can’t have it both ways.
We were always told that what people do in their bedrooms is no one else’s business, but the homosexual activists have insisted on telling us what they do in their bedrooms, and that we approve, and give it the same preferential treatment as heterosexual marriage.
Almost everyone was OK with allowing homosexuals to do whatever they wanted with each other, as long as everyone involved was a consenting adult, but that was not good enough for them.
Hear, hear Dana. And I believe in their right to share benefits in a civil union.
I will go one step further, I don’t want to know what any random hetero couple does, ie; don’t have sex on a beach in front of mine or anyone else’s children. So gay pride parades, which lean to the side of debauchery, are offensive to me.
And I am entitled to my opinion, regardless of the fascists who are demanding that I capitulate.
What happens behind closed doors, with consenting adults, is nobody’s business. I think the federal govt should have stayed out as well.
Yes Dana you were FORCED to read about their disgusting lifestyle. And they kept making you listen and read and watch, how sad is that ? Isn’t there some law that should make them stop you from having to think about that type of behavior? It is like they are trying to cram their disgusting gay agenda RIGHT DOWN YOUR THROAT !!
the “gay agenda” up until 3 years ago one of the GOP party planks in Texas the largest red state was to remake sodomy a felony. Now THAT is an agenda !
John, back on the meds pal.
Dana never said that at all- never alluded to whether or not she considered it disgusting, and as a matter of fact THIS IS what she said: “Almost everyone was OK with allowing homosexuals to do whatever they wanted with each other, as long as everyone involved was a consenting adult, but that was not good enough for them.”
Living proof John. Your way or the highway. Liberals are are the antithesis of freedom, the most intolerant people on earth.
The Gay Agenda = being treated equally by the state
You can still think they’re disgusting and vile. You just can’t refuse to grant them a marriage license. You can still discriminate against them in the workplace if you want, although that will likely become more difficult.
What’s the Bible’s position on polygamy?
The gay agenda – requiring people who disagree with the morality of homosexuality to participate in celebrating it
Yes, we can refuse to grant them a marriage license, if Texas is any example. Individuals still have the right to not violate their own conscience.
Yes, we can think that homosexuality and any sin, is disgusting and vile, because it is.
Yes we can refuse to hire people who are psychologically ill as homosexuals are, and thus avoid all the problems that come with that.
Your position is, “no diversity in the name of diversity”, which amounts to a war on freedom of religion and freedom of expression. In other words, if anyone disagrees with you, they must be forced to comply.
LOL. As if you don’t know the Bible’s position on polygamy.
If that was true, there wouldn’t be this much of a problem. Alas, th36 don’t want equality under Government, they want extra rights. Furthermore, they Demand that everyone else cater to them.
If a person apposed to SSM went to a gay baker and asked them for a cake that was against gay marriage, should the baker be forced to make it?
Govt should not be in the marriage business….period.
Why does a supposedly secular society want to shoehorn itself into a compact between two people and God?
Why should my wife and I get a break on paying “our fair share” simply because we have that govt. issued authentication while another couple……together as long or longer…..who don’t happen to be married………get bumpkiss?
Stop with the social engineering and get the heck out of peoples lives.
Russett,
You’ll always be allowed to stew in the juices of your own hatred, but your religious beliefs do not trump the civil rights of others.
It’s been my experience that most Christians have neither read nor understood their Bible, but accept the teachings of men who have interpreted it for them. Thus, American Christians hate homosexuals, but divorce and remarry with regularity. They defile the Sabbath and are not killed for it as the Bible commands but hate homosexuals. They eat bacon, sausage, ham, pork chops, ribs and pork roast with impunity, often on the Sabbath, but draw the line at treating homosexuals as whole people. Christians have tattoos and trim their hair and beards but homosexuality is a sin. Women speak up in church, some are ministers, but queers are to be shunned. It used to be a sin to eat shrimp, lobsters, clams, scallops and oysters, now Christian delicacies, but gays are still vile sinners. Cursing your parents and Christian girls having sex before marriage is no longer a problem (the Bible commands death), but two lesbians getting married is an abomination.
Said Jesus, “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery” (Mat. 19:8-9).
Why has that clear violation of the God’s law (it’s a Commandment!) been abandoned by most American Christians?
Leviticus 11:7-8: And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you. Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you.
Leviticus 19:28; Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD.
Leviticus 19:27: Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.
Deuteronomy 23:1; He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.
Leviticus 19:16; Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people: neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour; I am the LORD.
Exodus 21:17; And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.
Mark 10:11-12:Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
Exodus 31:14-15:Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
Corinthians 14:34-35:Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
Leviticus 10-11; And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
Deuteronomy 22:20-21; the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
Many Christians argue that the teachings of the Old Testament were superseded by the teachings in the New Testament, but Jesus said: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law (the Old Testament) or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law (the Old Testament) until everything is accomplished.” — Matthew 5:17-18
So how does a “good Christian” pick and choose what laws to obey and what laws to violate? How did conservative Christians draw the line at abortion and gay marriage, but support and practice divorce, remarriage, defiling the Sabbath, cursing parents, sex outside of marriage, haircuts, tattoos, and eating bacon-wrapped shellfish while working on the Sabbath?
It’s a myth that Christians hate gays, perpetrated by those who want you to be riled up at them. They conflate disapproval of behavior with hate. They are two very different things. But propagandists throughout history try to frame their arguments by stripping words of their meanings and by re-defining words as they understand the emotional power of some words over others.
Leaving Christianity aside, it’s hardly just Christians that eschew homosexuality. And if we’re concerned with religious liberty, then it really doesn’t matter why someone thinks something is right or wrong, whether he read it in a book, had a holy man tell him so, or just came up with it on his own. If he thinks something is wrong, that is his right to believe it, church or no church.
I myself, for the record, am not saying homosexuality is right or wrong here, I’m saying people have a right to their own conscience — which means THEY DO get to pick and choose which pieces of scripture to stick to, and which not to — and YOU do not get to choose them for them. One would think this would be reflexively clear, but it’s apparently not. So it doesn’t matter how many verses from the Bible you come up with to tell Christians what they should or should not believe. Religious liberty is just that.
Which also means they should not have to accept any behavior they do not wish to accept, and not to facilitate any activity they do not want to facilitate, to whatever degree they do or do not want to.
A lot of gay people actually get this. Not the activists, though. The activists and their allies are after something else — government-forced acceptance. Which is no better than government-forced acceptance of a particular establishment of religion.
I say that any society has the right to define its own cultural institutions, but that should come from within the society of people not from a board of unelected Ivy League, Ivory tower self-congratulatory elitists flipping definitions like toggle-switches in a giant social engineering experiment where people are little gears and light bulbs within a machine.
In the multi-cultural model, to the extent that it can even work there must be some level of respect for others’ beliefs and institutions. But one side shows nothing but contempt for them, and it’s not the Christian side doing it. It’s the activist side, projecting.
So spare us the various Biblical arguments, often taken out of context — and invention of rights that do not exist.
Let people choose who they want to associate with and how they behave toward each other in those groups, and let them choose whom not to associate with — and therefore the extent to which they wish to participate in the activities of other groups.
And let’s remember, as Atheist Anarchist Christopher Cantwell put it,
The real solution to this was to get the government out of it completely. I think I read somewhere that even in states where “gay marriage” was legal, only about 6 or 7% actually did do it, as this guy’s article underscores. There must have been some other reason it was really being pushed … and going back to Cantwell:
So be careful what you ask for, and be careful how you go about getting it, and who you … (and I realize the irony of this metaphor) get into bed to do it with.
You, I, nobody — has the right to demand approval of any of our relationships. The government, especially the Federal government has no jurisdiction here unless the people, through their congress, decide to. And even then it is to be limited, through the courts, citing authority in the Constitution. It is not the court’s role to insert itself and invent rights out of thin air.
philmon,
I don’t care what you believe. What I care about is what you do. Conservatives advocate discrimination against homosexuals, ostensibly because of religious beliefs.
Governments license personal contracts that we refer to as legal marriage. Certain tangible rights accrue to married couples and same sex couples were excluded from most of these benefits. The Supreme Court ruled that this discrimination must stop. Is this a special right? Hardly.
The inability of conservative “Christians” to explain why they vehemently oppose homosexual “sin” but now support and practice the former sins of premarital sex, defiling the Sabbath, remarriage, cursing parents, shrimp boils, BLT sandwiches, tattooing and haircutting strongly suggests that something else is at work. Recall that white supremacists used the Scripture to justify slavery.
Anti-homosexual discrimination originates from bigotry and is justified by religion. Same-sex marriage, which is now the law, offends you but does not harm you.
Jeffrey cites the Old Testament laws, but conveniently forgets — or never knew about — the results of the Council of Jerusalem. Read Acts Chapter 15, and pay close attention to verses 19-20 and 28-29.
His point about divorce and remarriage is a valid one, and the allowance of divorce and remarriage by every denomination except the Catholic Church is in error. And the greatest scandal in the Catholic Church is the ease with which annulments can be procured.
Jeffrey wrote:
Tell me, Jeff, is the baker who objects to homosexual “marriage” but who is required to provide goods and services for such a ceremony, or lose his business, not harmed?
Our esteemed host wrote:
As you will recall, and Jeffrey will freely admit, he supports “hate crime” legislation, which would make crimes committed against homosexuals, among other minority groups, subject to additional penalties; Jeffrey supports special rights for homosexuals.
Is the white supremacist behind the cake counter at Wal-Mart harmed when he is required to sell cakes to those vile Negroes?
People who sell cakes to the public cannot discriminate against their customers, except “No shirt, no shoes, no service”.
What if a Bible-reading ER doc refuses to treat an unmarried woman who is living with a man?
What if a Bible-reading 7-11 clerk refuses to sell Big Gulps to a tattooed teenager?
What if a Bible-reading pharmacist refuses to fill a prescription for a lesbian?
America will find special accommodations for those that want “religious” exemptions to societal norms, similar to the special right for Native Americans using peyote in religious ceremonies. America will find a balance. Christian cults that sexually abuse children will always be illegal, but we’ll find a way to accommodate bakers who claim their religious tenets don’t allow homosexuals to have cake.
Jeffrey wrote:
Those special benefits had already been addressed, in almost every state, through the various civil unions or domestic partnerships laws; if this was only about those special benefits, those statutes would have been sufficient. They were not because this had nothing to do with those benefits, but with the word marriage.
We’ve already seen a polygamous threesome come in and demand a marriage license to add the second “wife” to the legal marriage. The Chief Justice noted that every argument the majority gave for allowing homosexual “marriage” would apply to polygamous relationships; why shouldn’t we have a free-for-all on these things.
Real marriage exists because society, for as far back as we have any knowledge about human behavior, has known that stable heterosexual marriage was the best way to organize the family and culture; its benefits are both familial and economic, and society has a solid right to show preference for it. That preference does not mean that we should put in place legal punishments for those who choose an alternative, but simply that they do not receive the preference.
The inclusion of homosexual relationships under legal “marriage” harms the giving of that societal preference.
Jeffrey asked:
One wonders how the “Bible-reading pharmacist (who) refuses to fill a prescription for a lesbian” would even know she was a lesbian, unless she told him? Of course, filling a prescription for a lesbian isn’t participating in her activity, is it? It’s the treatment for an illness or condition which (normally) would have nothing to do with her choice of bed partners.
Still, if, as you say, businesses can legitimately have a “no shirt, no shoes, no service” policy, why can’t they refuse to serve homosexuals? After all, how does a barefoot customer harm the business?
Hate crimes legislation is just another arrow in our quiver against terrorism. Penalties against violent criminals are more severe if the violent crime is proven to be motivated by bigotry based on race (including whites), gender (including men), religion (including Christians), national origin, sexual orientation (including straights), whether the attacked is a law officer, etc.
If a mob of violent femmes attack a man and it’s proven the attack was motivated by anti-male bigotry, they can be prosecuted for committing a hate crime.
If a Black man attacks a mob of white men and it’s proven the attack was motivate by anti-white bigotry, he can be prosecuted for committing a hate crime.
Most Americans do not support violent assaults based on bigotry, but a rightist is different.
Hate itself is not against the law. Assaulting an individual based on your hate specifically of her is not a hate crime. Assaulting someone clearly based on hate for their sexual orientation, race, gender, etc, is.
If a white guy walking down the street is punched in the head by a Black teenager he might get 3 months, if anything, but if prosecuted as a hate crime, the penalty would be much more severe. The objective would be to deter other Black teenager from punching white guys because they don’t like white guys.
Conservatives claim they oppose hate crimes for philosophical reasons but it may be their opposition stems from the fact that they don’t like women, homosexuals, Blacks, the disabled, homeless, Mexicans etc.
That was a joke. But if you want to take it seriously, take it to the Supreme Court.
Jeffrey wrote:
Shouldn’t other black teenagers be deterred from punching black guys as well? Why do you believe that it is somehow less serious if a black guy beats up another black guy, than if he beats up a white guy?
Oh, wait, I’m sorry, I forgot: the left pay no attention to the black-on-black violence in Chicago and Camden and Philadelphia, do they? I should have realized that they really don’t care if one black man shoots another one in the head.
That’s the part you’ll never understand: conservatives see victims as individuals, not members of groups, and believe that the penalties ought to be the same, regardless of the race or ethnicity of the assailants and victims. The problem isn’t that we need hate crimes laws so that we can add on to the three month sentence, but that the sentence for the assault should be a lot more than three months in the first place.
I was tempted to fix that for you, striking out everything after “assaults”. But, interestingly, Lefties do tend to support, either overtly or via ignoring, violent assault, particularly in the Black community. Where was the outcry from leftists during the Occupy Movement, which was rife with assault, rape, and even murder?
You don’t even have to look back that far Blackbeard……..
How many Blacks were murdered in the streets of our major cities just this past weekend? How many Black people were assaulted, raped and robbed?
But “Black lives matter” don’t you know.
Actually I know when they matter……..every other first Tuesday in November………
VoR, black lives matter when they are taken away by white killers. When black lives are taken away by black killers, well, they apparently don’t matter all that much.
Amen Dana.
I’d bet hard currency that if polled……the Black folks about to be dead don’t draw the same distinctions as the MSM or racebaiting politicos…..