This isn't about Republicans, but age and ethnicity. Many folks over 60, particularly immigrants and Catholics, simply don't approve of gay marriage. They don't in Europe either.
Yes, the mentally ill bumping plumbing heads and slits, while others cross dress as each other.
Why does NJ so many dumb irrelevant posts?
For the record:
10 years ago Clinton, Obama, and Biden all opposed same sex marriage.
42% of Gen Z have mental health issues.
Yes your own son is under the microscope for his ”16 year old girls are the most fertile” comments so we know all about how you groomed your own children towards sexuality and marriage.Beyond that, we're talking about two entirely different concepts of sexuality and marriage here: one whose core principles are love, service, commitment and sacrifice; the second: pleasure, self-fulfillment, self-entitlement, and self-regard. One is oriented to the Other; the second: Self. One exalts Beauty; the second: Ugliness. One's end is Life; the second: Death.
There is some gray that's worthy of discussion here, which surly will be denounced by both sides of this argument as either bigoted or anti-religious. I think there is a reasonable middle path to suggest that two gay people should be able to be conjoined in a "legal union" that was previously only afforded to a man and a woman. I'm talking about in the eyes of the law and with consideration to certain tax benefits, rights of visitation, and so on. I think it's also reasonable that the definition of "marriage" as has been understood for thousands of years and mostly as an outgrowth of religious ideology should be reserved for a man and a woman. Like many topics of the day, it all doesn't fit under "homosexuality is immoral" nor does it fit under the overly broad sloganeering of "love is love." To Jerry's point above, is there a case where love "should not" be love? Before I get called a bigot, in the way our society currently views marriage.....I lean towards Gay people having the right.
Your thoughts/writings disappoint many...they never disappoint me. Well said.Agreed, Ram, there is indeed lots of "gray" in this discussion.
As a matter of law and practicality, I accept the concept of "civil unions" -- "marriages" if you like -- to address the issues you outline.
I don't see the orientation of homosexuality as immoral in itself. Rather, I see its expression in action as contrary to the natural order and therefore not a proper object of approval or celebration.
At the end of the day, there is no escape from the competition of opposing belief systems as the key determinant to one's approach.
When it comes to sexual behavior ("gay" or "straight"), the dividing line is between the age-old Judeo-Christian belief system as contained in Scripture, revealed by the prophets, proclaimed by the Son of God, and developed for centuries by the great minds of our race; and on the opposing side, the rejection of all that in favor of a malleable, personal "truth" seemingly discovered only last Thursday (figuratively speaking), which is established by power, self-interest, and whim.
The former belief system is difficult and demanding...and gave rise to Western Civilization. The latter belief system is convenient and fashionable (hence its popularity)...and is in the process of overthrowing Western Civilization.
God knows, Western Civilization was never perfect...but its replacement now under construction by the Powers is a nightmare. We've already gotten a taste. We're going to get a lot more.
You're living in California now, right Horsewanker? No problem for you getting married in that case.This isn't about Republicans, but age and ethnicity. Many folks over 60, particularly immigrants and Catholics, simply don't approve of gay marriage. They don't in Europe either.