Hurray, gay marriage is here

[Grug - American Neanderthal]

So with the SC opting not to rule, gay marriage has pretty much been made defacto law of the land. Here in WY gay couples were out and in the news cameras getting their licences and married, all for public display.

Conservative people are disgruntled about it, yet the disconnect of the root of the problem is almost mind boggling. If you ask where in the constitution it allows govt to grant or infringe on marriage, you get the blank stare. I have no problem with a document stating you are a domestic partner and afforded all rights that go with it. You do not get to co-opt and absorb a traditional and religious ceremony to further a agenda of normalizing abnormal behavior and forcing all people to not only accept but approve, regardless of religious belief and doctrine.

We have a dem senatorial candidate, who is really a piece of work. A former Catholic priest of 19 years who quit to get married, and then later divorced and seems to love every govt expansion you can think of, and he gets on TV and tells us all how God is not going to hate people of such diverseness. Well that's good to know God doesn't hate, but what has that to do with law and marriage? Are you trying to say God sanctions gay marriage? I can see why he is a former priest.

I keep saying that if people want to preserve the institution as anything meaningful to their faith, they had better get govt out of it, but it seems most are so indoctrinated into govt owing things, they won't even consider that. Marriage being the property of the state to mete out is a absolute as the rock underneath the statue of liberty in peoples minds its seems. So here we are trying to catch our balance as another pillar of stable society erodes.

And before the dust even settles, we have these people demanding churches marry them now. It seems your right to be gay supersedes others rights.

[Stetto, man...]

And buh-bye to freedom of religion, and speech as a tag along...

...But I have to wonder how different the argument might have been if organized religion would have quit changing Gods mind on matters of "social evolution". If it's a sin today, wait...

[HiTemp]

We have gay marriage because of three things:

1. People are willingly ignoring the law they took an oath to uphold. Witness the AG and the administration refusing to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, a legally passed law that is still binding on all 50 states.
2. The gay lobby is powerful and have used effective tactics. They demonize anyone, anywhere who so much as wants to have a discussion about it. They won't allow discussion, it's see it their way or be burnt at the stake of public opinion.
3. The gradual removal of any gender identity issues from the diagnostic manuals for mental health issues. That means people who have a problem dealing with the gender they are while wanting to be the opposite are no longer viewable as having some sort of mental challenge. Now they are assumed to be perfectly healthy in every way, mentally speaking, so anyone who interferes with them trying to sort out which rest room to use is practicing some form of discrimination.

All of this stems from the ridiculous psychobabble that began in the 60s, which proclaims equality is supreme and difference is evil in proportion to the difference. Little leaguers aren't allowed to say something like, "Strike him out, Ken!" to their team's pitcher because it might offend someone or hurt the batter's esteem. The assumption - unproven assumption - is, that a single event that lowers esteem is unhealthy AND life-lasting. Sorry, but no one has ever proven that is true, it's just asserted along with emotional appeal heart-tugs to make people believe it without questioning it (why that would be heartless!).

From those ridiculously forwarded concepts comes almost all of modern political correctness. Now, see, if you don't allow someone to do whatever they want, it's discrimination and deprivation of personal freedom. That last because of the erroneous post-modern idea that freedom is defined as doing whatever you want, though nothing in history can be pointed to that actually represents that false ideal.

True freedom is absolutely NOT doing whatever the hell you want. As an example, I would point to my friend Cecil who is one of the most talented musicians I have ever met. He hears music as notes. Remember that show "Name that tune?" He would call out the notes as they played like four... C G Bflat D.. then guess the song. He plays about 12 different instruments, 6 of them really well. Guitar, Bass Guitar, Bass fiddle, Violin, Clarinet, and Sax. He can convert keys on the fly for any one of those instruments like a transposing machine.

If I had to give an example of supreme freedom, Cecil and his music would be it. He can pick up virtually any instrument and play virtually anything there is to play, any genre, any key, and he doesn't need a single note on a printed page to do it. THAT's freedom.

How did Cecil get to be so free? Did he just start playing something at an early age and play it however the hell he wanted? No. His freedom came from devoting a lot of time like all musicians have to do, practicing the rudimentary moves of the instrument, learning the musical language of notes, scales, chords, progressions, etc. Rather than do anything he wanted, he had to surrender his so-called "freedom" to do whatever he wanted and discipline himself to long sessions of practice doing the exact things he DIDN'T want to do in order to master his craft. Then, and only then, after surrendering himself to someone else's rules and dictates, did he finally arrive at the place where he became totally free, able to play whatever, whenever, with which ever.

That, I think, is the fallacy of freedom today. People think if ANY rules are imposed on them, they've lost an ounce of freedom, yet in the long run it may be that freedom truly comes through that series of smaller surrenders to something more than our own simple ideas. Cecil would not be the maestro he is if he just made sound come out of his instrument rather than working his way slowly toward a perfect and disciplined sound by years of practice to achieve it. Likewise, our own freedoms are not just a leaf in the wind to blow whichever way one thinks to set course. That results in an anarchy of life, where no skill or discipline seems required and that's good because the person doesn't have any, they've never worked to build any. But for those who build a skill set in life, they can look back and tell you that well placed shot on target or that wonderful painting or that successful surgery wasn't a matter of someone telling others not to offend their delicate psyches by saying they aren't a good shot, a good artist, or a good surgeon. Instead they will all tell you they surrendered a smaller freedom to achieve the larger freedoms they now enjoy.

How does this relate to gay marriage? It's a matter of the gay activists trying to seize a freedom they surrendered nothing to earn. It's like printing out one's own credentials to do cardiac surgery or repair old paintings in the Louvre. It comes down to achievement lessened to private demand for equality rather than arriving at that equality through societal movement. The fact that we have gay "activists" tells you that on it's own, without an extra push, the idea of gay marriage wouldn't convince a soul of it's own merit. Only when politics is played and a social stigma is forced on those unwilling to accept it does it see a ray of sunshine. In other words, we've "gained" the demise of one type of discrimination by imposing a discriminatory penalty on all who are unwilling to play along. We conquered a dictator by becoming another one. We've made a right by using two wrongs.

It doesn't make any sense.

Marriage is traditionally a societal contract between man and women and it has historically been in place just about forever for the purpose of defining a family unit and offering protections to that family unit, such as legal protections against anyone else trying to lay claim to a husband or wife of another. It's revered in religions also, and that's because in the past, before religion was cast out of public discourse, religion was a part of the fabric in most societies. Of course a wedding was going to be a religious ceremony in a society where people view procreation as part of the divine plan for the human race. Why wouldn't it?

But this warped view of freedom has seized most people today and they view no difference between it being unfair that you can't get just the channels you want on cable as it's unfair for Joe to marry Henry if that's what THEY want. Freedom - once again viewed only through the kaleidoscope of me, me, me.

[Stetto, man...]

I'll be all for homosexual marriage the day Bradley & Duncan biologically produce a child together. I doubt I'll ever not be offended by the public displays and outraged at the shoving down my kids' throats the lie of it being "natural" and "normal"...

[HiTemp]

They never will produce a child together because our human forms were not designed that way.

The very act of human creation, whether you believe it was a divine act or some Darwinian thing, is discriminatory. Nature works that way. The lion chases after the old, weak, or injured zebra... it doesn't chase after the most robust, and that's a discrimination of target. The whole survival of the fittest notion behind evolution doesn't have a place for politically correct equality of existence, treatment, or outcome. Instead it's the most brutal discriminatory act because it's truly blind to outcome - you either adapt or you go out of existence, tough luck if you can't adapt.

In a theologically based creation there was also discrimination - light from darkness; waters above the firmament from waters below the firmament; creatures in the air vs. creatures that crawled on the ground; man from woman; plants from animals. The entire process was one of discriminating and instituting significant difference one from the other. Because something is different doesn't mean it's better or worse. A post-hole digger differs from a shovel; they are not equal, yet there are jobs where one serves you far better than the other. That's the lesson society has lost. They view difference as bad where it doesn't provide for equality of outcome. We want contests but we don't want any losers, which seems like wanting cake and eating it too.

The whole idea behind such a push is to blur the line of inferiority. Jack and Paul as a married couple are posed as the equals of Havey and Tina when they clearly are not. In the PC view, they can't face the idea of neither Jack nor Paul having a womb, so they jump over that to the next best argument they can make which is the notion that a gay couple's love is no less than a hetero couple's love. Fine. Anyone can love any other person to a high or low degree, that's not the issue. The issue is marriage and the whole purpose of that institution, and it's NOT about visitation in hospitals or survivor benefits. But if you're going to view it all through the glasses of equality of outcome, there is no other way to arrive at that point then allowing anyone to do whatever they want.

The question always posed and immediately dismissed as offensive is, "If we allow Joe to marry Bob because that's what they both want, what to we say to Charlie when he wants to marry John AND Bill, or his goat, or his Buick?" Philosophically, there is nothing you CAN say to it because you've made marriage a matter of what any two people think about it, therefore precedent is set for what any 3 think, or any 7 think, or what any person thinks on behalf of his goat.

We live in an era where things are too instant and throwing something away that was meant to be lifelong is commonplace. Celebrities marry who's hot today and cast them away tomorrow when they want to chase the newest rising star. Thoughts seem to be taking the same path. Oh, that requires too much thought so I'll just do what I want and if I don't like it, I'll change it. This is the very attitude that leads to abortion on demand being "a right" and, if you're in California, mandatory for all insurance companies to have in all their policies regardless of who they sell them to, church or not.

The one certainty of all of it is that it's always been destructive of any society that allowed it. Greek culture was the leading influence in the world about 300 BC or so, and now it's dead. Roman culture is dead also. Both died essentially the same death; they bred a culture where the individual mattered more than the whole culture, freedom was defined by a loud few who didn't want to follow what they viewed as "normal" but insisted on their own brand of equality. After a while this dis-uniting virus in society has it's effect. Nothing is more valuable than anything else, therefore nothing is worth fighting for or defending. Freedom is given higher moral weight than human life, so it's okay to chuck your defective baby off a cliff, and next week you can push grandma off it too because she's inconvenient to take care of. Eventually that works it way to every care of society, be it laws, rules, or just relationships with others around you. It always results in the same thing; division, and then death.

Those who are proponents of it think this will bring them happiness; it won't. They will not be satisfied ever were they to make it a Constitutional Amendment. It still will not change the basic dysfunction of the relationship that was not meant to be, neither by a divine creator or evolution. Go against either and eventually you end up the subset that is unable to adapt and out of existence you go.