The Sexy Politico's Blog

7 thoughts on “A Response to My Previous Rant: By Request”

1. Hi Politico, this post was much better. I still take issue with some of what you said, but we do agree on two things. One, Rick’s position on sex, in general, being something special and therefore worthy of protecting. Two, your statement that the federal government has no place in the argument about marriage. You say, however, that it is the province of the individual states and I believe that it, as well as many other things the state, local and federal government now meddles in without cause, is the province of the church.

   Having said that I will leave the subject of Rick and go on to say one thing on the general discussion of gay marriage. I have nothing against gay people exercising their right to pursue happiness, as I said yesterday, as long as their pursuit of happiness doesn’t curtail the rights of others. But marriage by definition is the ceremony of the manifestation of a covenant whereby two people enter into matrimonial life together.

   Up to here you probably agree. But what does the word matrimony mean? Where does it come from? What is the etymology of that word? This is, again, from Wikipedia: “The related English word “matrimony” derives from the Old French word matremoine which appears around 1300 C.E. and ultimately derives from Latin mātrimōnium which combines the two concepts mater meaning “mother” and the suffix -monium signifying “action, state, or condition.”

   Since a gay couple cannot reproduce, their union, though civil, legal, recognized by the state and fully acceptable for all reasons of inheritance, employment insurance benefits, social security and whatever else may apply, should not be called marriage or matrimony. Why not stick with some form of the word union, i.e, civil union, life union, etc…, and avoid all the bickering? According to the Declaration of Independence, upon which our country and our freedom began, just as long as you don’t infringe upon the rights of others, you’re free to “unite” with whomever you wish. Once again, it’s called the pursuit of happiness.

   You see? You’re saying the government shouldn’t be legislating this stuff, but they already are doing so *in favor* of gay rights and gay marriage. Now we need to repeal those laws and then get the government out of it for good. The only reason the courts and the government are involved in something that clearly falls within the province of the church is because the homosexual community went to the government hoping to get the church’s position overturned. Basically they want to tell the preacher what to preach and that’s just catty-wampus and backwards.

   • They didn’t go to the courts because they want the church’s position overturned, they went to the government because the government is the one who legislates things such as inheritance, taxes, and things of this nature. If your argument is correct than any “marriage” not done in a church shouldn’t be called a marriage, and marriage by two people who are unable to reproduce no matter the gender shouldn’t be called a marriage, any marriage that doesn’t produce children isn’t a marriage. Do you see how this argument doesn’t make since. If marriage was soly a religious institution than there would be no basis for court cases, but then there would be no proposition 8, no defense of marriage act, you wouldn’t receive tax benefits for being married. If you told two straight people who learned that they couldn’t bare children that they weren’t married they were “civil unioned” or whatever the verb is, they would be outraged.

     • It’s not as you say, politico, though what you say seems to make sense at first. Allow me to explain why

       You see, those heterosexual couples who get married, have a chance of producing children. It may be that they need fertility counseling or surgery to help them, but the one produces female zygotes and the other, male. reproductive compatibility is the key. Homosexual relationships cannot produce offspring by their very nature. Heterosexual relationships, by and large, can.

       There are demographic studies on the the health of nations based on the growth of their population, which is based on, among other things, the birth rate. If we don’t continue to grow, we die as a nation. All morality aside. Granted, the country is still growing through immigration, but national demographic health of the nation is one of the most far reaching reasons reproduction should be encouraged by tax deductions and other federal benefits.

       If marriage were recognized as falling within the province of the church then it would fall to the states to regulate the registration of matrimonial unions *and other* civil unions as they saw fit. The same goes for the federal government. The problem causing the Proposition 8 and DOMA legislations is that the government is already being used, the courts are already being used, our state and federal legislatures are already being used to attempt pro-gay-marriage and pro-gay-rights legislation, so the people who are against the government’s legislation or regulation of these things are being forced to go through government channels to try and head it off. If you want to fight for gay rights or gay marriage then stop *doing* it through government establishments, or else you force those who don’t think the government should have anything to do with the debate to address their side of the same issues in the sae venues. These conservative groups don’t involve the government in these issues because they want the government involved, but because the government already is involved and it has been allowed to go too far for too long.

       It’s all about a couple’s personal liberties, which they are already guaranteed by the Constitution. But the question of them receiving tax deductions and other federal benefits as a married couple should not be hinged on whether they have made a commitment to being together for life, because most marital commitments don’t last any more. That question should hinge on the theoretical viability of reproduction, which is not a possibility for homosexuals.

       I mean, we’re talking about the basic purpose of sex here. Sex is for reproduction. It just is. Plain and simple. That’s *why* it feels so good, so we will reproduce. Call it our creator’s design or the key to evolution, whatever you want to call it. The reason homosexual males enjoy their sexual practice is because our bodies also register pleasure when we defecate, for the same reason. It is essential for survival. Homosexuality is a perversion of the sexual nature of humanity. Why should we ask our government to reward that perversion? It actually does demographic harm, rather than aiding our country in any way, not to mention all of the strife and division being produced by the “civil reform” movements continually launched on behalf of homosexuality.

       It used to be that people realized that when they engage in perverse activity it gives them a sexual excitement like nothing else, and that’s why they do it. Nowadays they want to act like it’s normal and should be accepted by everyone as the same as the potentially offspring producing union between a man and a woman.

       I think every homosexual knows the facts of what I’ve just said. I don’t hate them for what they have decided is the lifestyle they want to live, but I do hate the fact that the government is neck deep in the debate. I’m a personal liberties person. I say if they don’t want to leave any progeny then that’s their business, but stop trying to make those of us who are NOT that way accept it as equal to marriage. Do what you want to do in the privacy of your home or hotel room, just leave me and my family and our government out of it completely.

       • Btw: Why do all of your comments go to my spam folder first, that’s just weird

         While I firmly disagree with you, I fully accept your right to say what you believe. We are both Americans, I am assuming. I just find it unfair that you believe my friend (who is female but I am not going to give her name for her privacy) and her boyfriend shouldn’t be able to get married because she is not producing eggs. It is a medical condition that cannot be remedied in any shape or form. She will never be able to give birth. But to you she shouldn’t be able to have sex or get married because of a genetic condition she was born with. Or make her have a “civil union” which is only an insult. It says that the government believes that your relationship is worth less than others. You want to put a legal distinction on people’s love an relationships just because they are unable to produce children. What if people don’t want children? Ever, they have surgeries and choose not to have children, should their relationships be considered of lesser value. I don’t find this issue to be about morals anymore. I find this to be a constitutional issue. The fourteenth amendment gives equal protection under the law. That’s the bottom line. Equal protection. You don’t have to like it. The way I feel about it is this, if a person doesn’t like gay marriage, then don’t marry someone of the same sex, don’t go to a gay wedding.

         • Marriage is a religious term and institution. If the homosexual community If a homosexual couple wants to be married then let them join one of the churches that, contrary to the scriptures and contrary to God’s will, recognize homosexuals as being eligible for marriage. Those churches and the people who are in leadership in them will one day answer to God for misleading people as pertains to scriptural teaching.

           Christians believe in healing as one of the scriptural promises they can hope for as believers and Christian couples should therefore get married and hope for healing if they are somehow reproductively challenged or sterile. Other religions may have different terms for a union between two people. They have the right to use that term. All I’m saying is that they have the freedom to practice their religion and to not be mocked by people who don’t adhere to the religion “legally” using the terms of that religion to describe themselves or their actions. Homosexual “marriage” is a mockery of unions by people of faith; i.e., Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc…

           Marriage is a civil union, but it is not the only civil union that can exist. I can envision a lifetime commitment between best friends who are of the same sex and are not sexually involved with each other in any way. The bible refers to this as a covenant, marriage being a type of covenant. The state should not refer to any civil union as a marriage, whether between hetero- or homosexual people because marriage is a religious concept.

           So, the state’s requirements and the churches requirements for union between two people can and maybe should be different. If a couple has no inclination to belong to a church then they should seek a union according to the state’s requirements. It shouldn’t matter to them what the state chooses to call it. In the state’s view, a union between homosexuals and a union between heterosexuals MIGHT be equal, although those two couples call their unions by different names.

           Now, the only reason the government EVER got involved in this discussion is because homosexuals started asking for acceptance they are not really entitled to have. They want to be accepted in the church, but their union is against the scriptures. They want to be accepted as a “married” couple, but that’s just not correct. They should ask to be recognized as a life union or civil union and then, if the state agrees, that should be the end of it. The federal government should have absolutely no say in this debate.
           This is a sensible solution that would work for all types of things, not just the issue of marriage. The Federal Government and State governments have stepped over the bounds of proper authority in too many different issues and we now have too many laws that are counterproductive for way too many things. We need to get about eh business of trimming these laws and government organizations down to size.
           I could have said more, but this is already too long.

2. 1) If marriage is a religious institution, which religion gets to define it? The Episcopalians endorse Equal Marriage. So do the Evangelical Lutherans and the United Church of Christ. Two of the three main branches of Judaism also marry couples regardless of the gender combination. And the Buddhists. And the Taoists.

   If marriage is a religious institution, does that mean atheists cannot legally marry? What about agnostics? Or anyone that has ever doubted their faith?

   2) If marriage is solely for the purpose of producing children, does that mean that the marriage ends as soon as the children leave? Does it mean that infertile couples can not marry?

   3) If you define marriage in terms of the year 1300 CE, does that mean that no marriages took place prior to 1300 CE?

3. Cogito, read my reply in the above conversation. I think it answers all your questions as well. If not then let me know.

Comments are closed.