| Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
June 30, 2015 - 3:16pm
#1
LGBT
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns | |
Show Reports | |
Features Latest News Community | |
Resources Subscriptions |
© 2024 StereophileAVTech Media Americas Inc., USA
All rights reserved
Words mean things. When you change the strict, narrow definition of marriage from one man + one woman to something else you cannot logically exclude from that definition the number of people involved or the species of either party. Or their age. Or even how closely related they are. I am not in support of a law reaching into anyone's bedroom or carrying prison time for homosexual behavior, but as a Catholic I cannot agree with or support that behavior. You want gay civil unions, great. You want to live together, great. You want to ruin the thousands-of-years-old institution of marriage by making it so broad that it means nothing, not great. I am a carpenter by trade, I have built $3,000,000+ homes for plenty of gay couples. I don't care at all what they do with themselves. But for the Supreme Court to overreach and use legal force, in the style of Roe v. Wade, to ram this down the throats of the handful (14) of states that hadn't already approved it is disgusting.
Right On! chuckles304.
but you confuse marriage with your religious "holy matrimony". I've been married twice, neither time in a church, neither time by a "religious official". Nobody is asking the precious Catholic Church to marry LGBTs "in Holy Matrimony". Its a pity you can't see the difference. The LGBT community is asking for the same civil rights as non-LGBT people, like the ability to pass on assets upon death, have a significant other make end-of-life decisions, etc. You know, the things you take for granted.
It is my belief that long after gay marriage is accepted and legal across the globe, activists still will not be happy because some may still express their disapproval or snicker at the thought of one man referring to another as his husband. They will destroy or attempt to destroy anyone that does not universally love and accept whatever the LGBT community wants.
This is dangerous ground because nobody that ever walked the face of the Earth had universal love and acceptance. There is no Constitutional right, nor should anyone have a reasonable expectation, to never be offended by someone else's opinion. If the activists insist on also being the Thought Police, not only dictating what the law should be, but also denying the right to in anyway think in opposition to what a fringe group demands, then many who now support the cause will click their heels together, toss a "Heil Hitler" salute, and wish you Good Day Sir, and be done with it all
The institution of marriage predates the Catholic Church by a considerable amount of time. I also am not confusing marriage with anything else; I am using it in its original strict meaning of one man and one woman joined, the most basic building block of society. Believe it or not a civil marriage performed in front of a judge can be valid in the eyes of the Church. This is because matrimony is conferred on either party by either party; the priest (or judge) is merely a witness to the public vows taken. Unless I am gravely mistaken one can hire a lawyer or otherwise delegate the authority to make the end-of-life decisions and asset management you mentioned. I fail to see why we have to destroy the meaning of a word to enable that.
CaptainVinyl:
You'll be pleased to know hardly 24 hours passed after the Court's gay marriage power grab and plans are already being made to control what is said or preached in churches and religious institutions. George Takei publicly stated that churches should be forced to change their views or have their tax-exempt status pulled.
Laughing....