A lot has been said by the religious bigots (primarily Xtian religious bigots) about the "Sanctity of Marriage", and how letting "Queers" marry will destroy said "Sanctity of Marriage". The Religious Wrong have paraded around in Massachusetts all about the "Sanctity of Marriage".
Hopefully, we can get rid of them and send them off to India where they can demonstrate and mouth off and be bigots about the fact that DOGS are being allowed - even FORCED to marry! OH the Caninity!!! PETA is already hot on the case, but because they don't feel the doggies should be FORCED to marry. (To hell with the 3 year old girls in Arabic countries - let's make sure the DOGS aren't forced into marriages!!)
Now - if two human beings who love one another, are committed to each other, live together and want to celebrate that union of their souls can destroy the "Sanctity of Marriage" by the fact they are of the same gender, wouldn't you think the bigots in the Religious Wrong would be all over this like white on wedding rice?
*crickets*
Hmm?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I'm against marriage for anyone. To me, it's the government mandating religious law. I say civil unions for all and if someone wants to have a marriage, they can do so under the guidance of their religion.
Whoa !!!! I will get back to you on this later.
But do you really have to say queers? Hugs.
Why some people, quite a bit farther to the right of me, feel so threatened by gay unions is beyond me?
I don't go around poking my long nose to any hetero-sexual marriages and question if those are right for them or not. Obviously most of them are not according to the divorce rates. This is why - who the hell am I to question if it is right for two consenting adults, regardless of their sexual preferences, to want to enjoy the full protection and privileges that is given to the heteros? Really, if those "concerned" citizens would start paying more interest to reasons why so many marriages are failing with the predictable social consequenses, they would do more good for the society than fighting against this sort of nonsense demon that the gay marriages represents in their warped minds.
Speaking as one of those strange gay types, I've got no problem with being called queer. It's very much a reclaimed catch-all term within the gay community.
BBC? I do find the idea of being seperated into two types of gays offensive, though. It's sad that you seem to feel the only acceptable kind of gay person is one who's effectively ("There are natural gays that are quite and mind their business")in the closet. Out of sight, out of mind?
Personally I'm grateful for the extrovert types who liven up the pride parades - visability is hugely important. If they're too uncomfortably queer for you, they're doing their job well.
I have yet to hear one intelligent reason given that shows that gay marriages/unions will do any harm to non gay marriages/unions. There is a good reason for that. It's because there isn't one. One couple's marriage has no effect on another couple's marriage regardless if they are gay or not.
Post a Comment