Now playing an extended engagement in Ottumwa?
The ink was barely dry on the order before the inevitable bleating and caterwauling began. Iowa's Supreme Court today unanimously overturned the state's gay-marriage ban, giving gay people a third state where they can legally be wed. Gay-rights advocates, as expected, hailed the justice inherent in the decision. As for the reaction from the other side, well, I could have done a pretty accurate job of typing up their comments in advance. Said Bryan English, spokesman for the conservative Iowa Family Policy Center, "I would say the mood is one of mourning right now in a lot of ways." He also made it clear that folks like him will now turn to state lawmakers in an effort to have a California-style referendum on the issue. "This is an issue that will define (lawmakers') leadership. This is not a side issue," said English. But of course. With all the issues confronting Iowa lawmakers, certainly stopping people who love one another from getting married should be at the forefront of their concerns. Then the Rev. Keith Ratliff Sr. of Maple Street Baptist Church in Des Moines issued this chilling statement: "It's a perversion, and it opens the door to more perversions. What's next?" I don't know. Maybe cats will start mating with birds in the streets of Davenport. Or maybe Toby Keith will suddenly release an album of show tune covers. According to Salon.com, Iowa Rep. Steve King, a conservative Republican, called the decision an unconstitutional act by "activist judges." A friend remarked that when conservatives get a court ruling that's to their liking, it's a work of thoughtful jurisprudence by the judges involved, no matter how far the decision might stray from past rulings and existing constitutional law, but when a ruling goes against the right-wingers, it's always those darned "activist judges." King also fears Iowa is at risk of becoming a "gay marriage Mecca." I can help him there. Rep. King, I advise you to get your buddies in Congress together and legislatively enact equal marriage rights for all Americans. There. Mecca problem solved. The whole gay marriage debate isn't going anywhere anytime soon, but I can tell you this: The push for equal rights for gay Americans is a relentless tide, beating against the ramparts of intolerance, hate and ignorance. Those barriers will someday fall. It might take five years, 10 years or 20 years, but the die is cast. A new day is dawning. It's just a matter of how quickly we feel that sunshine.
Labels: Government, Life in General, Politics
posted by Brant at
2:06 PM
62 Comments:
I wonder how long it will take the right to realize that they can't get the genie back in the bottle...
Mainly because Genies are gay.
And bottles are metaphorical closets...
It's about time! Baby steps but still progress towards equality for all, without caveats.
Opposition to gay marriage is usually framed as a "protection" of marriage -- heterosexual marriage, to be precise -- but I don't see how the legal and living arrangements that adults strike up in a consenting relationship have anything to do with anyone else's marriage. Divorce rates are around 50 percent now, and I doubt they'll go any higher if gays have the right to be lawfully wed.
I also have the feeling that "don't ask, don't tell" will soon be consigned to history's dustbin.
--Brad Hundt
Brad Brad Brad... you are SOOOOO wrong... My wife is TOTALLY going to leave me now that gays can get married in Iowa... Seriously, she told me it is the last straw!
I guess I have no recourse now other than to go gay... See?! And you libs said it wasn't contagious!
Better add some Streisand movies to my netflix queue...
Don't worry, El. I love you (but only as a friend). ;-)
I love you to Brantski...
Oh, wait... I guess I am supposed to say "Only as a friend"
"Too"
Damnit!
I think I love you both. ;-) I'm a gay, construction worker who doesn't like Streisand. Hot right? Call me. -Pete
Toto, I think we're not in Kansas anymore ...
Tag says Life in General. This action sounds like Life in Particular.
No, homosexuality is more general than people like to think. Someday it may be OK to be openly gay all the time.
Let's hope so. Separate is not equal.
If you believe gaining the right of marriage puts homosexuality on equal footing with heterosexuals, you are mistaken. Homosexuality is a societal abnormality, and always will be. That doesn't mean homosexuals should be excluded from a society or not given the basic rights of other individuals. But they are certainly outside the societal norms of this country.
And let's just call this victory for what it really is: a way to include your partner on such things as medical coverage, retirement plans, etc. If you need a marriage license to validate your relationship, then you really don't have much of a relationship.
So what's the societal norm these days? 2 1/2 kids? Multiple affairs while you're married? Multiple marriages and divorces? Working moms? Soccer moms? Mr. Moms? Serial monogamy? Unrequited love? Premarital textual relations? Sending nekkid pix of yourself to your boyfriend via your cellphone?
When you start applying the word "normal" haphazardly, you're on thin ice.
"a societal abnormality" is really "ignorance" and "blindness" regardless of sexual preference. I so love how it's always heterosexuals, usually white, that deem things they do not want to understand as right, wrong, just, unjust, deplorable, abnormal, etc. Validation of a relationship, heterosexual or homosexual, is not the point. The real point is fairness and giving everyone in this wonderful country the same constitutional rights and privileges...our birthright.
Rights are different that "normal". If homosexuality was "normal" then the human race would have difficulty existing.
What I find most interesting is that those that support homosexuality as normal, also support evolution.
Evolutionary theory would lend itself to be counter to ideas that do not involve reproduction of the species.
Logic dictates (not politics, human rights or other such issues) that homosexuality is an abnormality because it does not succeed in our genetic purpose per evolution, that is to pass our genes on to the next generation.
It is a true irony that those opposed to evolution are against homosexuality while those for evolution argue for the normalcy of homosexuality.
Neither side can have it both ways, those in all honesty the religious perspective has a stronger stance on this as they are just reiterating long held stances, the modern liberal has two competing philosophies.
I am not applying the word "normal" haphazardly. Any society has its standards or levels of acceptance. Homosexuality is not a normal lifestyle in this country. Neither is polygamy. But there are pockets of acceptance in the U.S. for those choices. To even have those choices is what makes this country great.
No one can legally deny homosexuals the right to have - what? - a union, relationship, whatever you want to call it, with another individual. Those freedoms are protected by our constitution. That is their birthright.
It's the same right that atheists have to not be exposed to such things as prayer in school, or any of the other religious traditions that formed the foundation of this country. They are successful in the court battles, but it doesn't mean they are representative of the majority of believers in this country.
It's the same situation. Label it however you want.
I would argue that homosexuality is definitely "normal"--- just because it is consistently a minority status, doesn't make it abnormal...
7-10% of the population is left-handed... which is either less than or on target with estimates about the % of the population that is gay. Considering that these percentages stay fairly consistent over time, it would appear that being gay, like being left handed (or having red hair) is a normal subset of being human...
I would define "normal" as something that happens with regularity... and people are gay at a consistent rate of 10% or so... and people are left handed at a consistent rate of 7-10%...
So, it's perfectly normal...
I think you are getting hung up on the word "abnormal." OK, use the phrase outside of the mainstream. Does that make it better, softer, kinder? Being left-handed is outside the mainstream of America. We still want them, even though they are different from 92 percent of the popuation.
Logic dictates (not politics, human rights or other such issues) that homosexuality is an abnormality because it does not succeed in our genetic purpose per evolution, that is to pass our genes on to the next generation.
I'm really not certain of what you're saying here, but I think you are suggesting that homosexuality is some sort of genetic or bioligical abnormality. If homosexuality were an abnormality, natural selection would have taken care of that abnormality long ago, because, as you say, it does not fulfill our genetic purpose. Obviously, homosexuals are as normal as heterosexuals in our species species because homosexuality has survived for thousands of years. Logic therefore dictates that homosexuality is in some way important to the continuation of the human species because it has survived natural selection.
Actually evolutionary theory would automatically disagree because it does not help further the expansion and reproduction of the species.
This is a logical, not political or religious based argument.
You are now attempting to find reason within your framework to agree with the statement.
BTW Ellipses, the 10%, 7% or so numbers that are floated are not based in demographics but in political based arguments or the long discredited Kensey study.
1%-1 1/2% of practicing (not tried) homosexuality is the more expected result.
So if its only 1 to 1 1/2 % of the population, why are we so bloody worried about it?
Maybe because the men who wrote the Bible a couple thousands years ago were homophobes? Just a guess.
We've run off track about the marriage argument. My only point is simply this: homosexuality is outside the mainstream of our society.
The fact that homosexuals win the right to marry does not mean they are now an inside the mainstream part of our society. They still have minority status among us and always will, no matter what the courts say.
I don't want to exclude them from society and I don't want to be included with them because I am not homosexual.
In other words, live and let live, which is what, by excluding discrimination based on sexual orientation, we are trying to do. I don't hear gays out trying to convert straights to their lifestyle, or saying that heteros have made a choice to live their lifestyle.
I so love how it's always heterosexuals, usually white, that deem things they do not want to understand as right, wrong, just, unjust, deplorable, abnormal, etc.
Yeah, because other religions and countries are so tolerant. Let me know when Islamic countries OK gay marriage.
I've got no feelings on the issue one way or another, but let's be realistic here.
I was quoting someone else's post above - by the way.
Why would we pattern our domestic laws after islamic countries?
Isn't it our job to be "better" than them? :-)
Just to play devil's advocate, Ellipses, "better" is a relative term (although I suspect you have tongue planted firm,ly in cheek). For example, apparently many people in Iraq now think things were "better" under Saddam Hussein. But again, their view is relative -- as is the view of most people, whether they want to admit it or not. As long as Saddam didn't off a family member, life was OK. If a US tank runs over your kid, life is suddenly worse.
I can't think of a single instance in which allowing homosexuals to marry would make my life worse ... unless I'm planning to get married and can't book a church because they're suddenly booked by gays.
There are a lot more pressing needs to address in this country -- health care and tax reform, poverty, education. For the Bible quoters out there, I don't recall Jesus being quoted as saying to the lambs assemble on Judgment Day, "Enter ye into heaven because you stopped a gay marriage."
I did recall him being quoted about taking care of the sick and hungry, though.
I wasn't saying that we should pattern our laws after those of Islam - though one could argue they all come out of the same religous background.
I was merely showing the idiocy of the statement made that "whites" come up with these things.
I'm pretty sure you'll find society has the same biases against homosexuality regardless of race, color or creed.
Dale, you're right, and that's the sad part.
What is the job of our government? Is it to keep us safe and secure as a society? Why do we have laws? Why do I have to wear a seatbelt? And if I feel like it, why can't I break the law? What is normal?
Just because a small group of individuals choose to be gay doesn't mean we as a society should change the laws to conform to their wishes. The laws governing marriage should stay the same. Marriage is between a man and a woman regardless of the divorce rate. Laws are meant to keep order in our society. I feel sorry for those who are gay. It is a self destructive, unimaginable horror of a lifestyle with disappointments and despair.
Don't ever think being gay is normal. The anus was not designed to be a love organ; it was designed to eliminate feces from the body. Nor was the vagina created to be entertained with plastic strap-ons from another female. It was designed for pleasure with a woman’s husband and a coupling between the two of them for human reproduction.
If society doesn't take a stand for what is right and what is wrong, then no human activity should be considered wrong. We have to draw a line to make a distinction between being human and being an animal. For the record, I've heard studies that suggest that the animal kingdom is void of homosexually? Do their instincts supersede our superior intellectual thinking?
We as a society should try to love and help gays when we can. But to allow them to marry is telling them that their behavior is normal and acceptable. And nothing is further from the truth.
It surprises me how many Christians on this blog agree happily with all of the dark, atheistic viewpoints expressed. Are there other atheist bloggers blogging?
From the Old Testament, Leviticus 18:22: "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." And Leviticus 20:13 adds, "they shall surely be put to death." Christ came to free us from our sinful lifestyles and to forgive us from our evil ways. But we must repent.
Freedom comes from an understanding of the Truth. Any other lifestyle pays the ultimate consequences of death while living. It's our choice. Being gay just darkens the pot. Sin is sin, and the wages of sin are death. He who has ears let him hear.
Well put, but you are sure to be flamed by the Brant and his unholy OR choir (Ellispes, Brad Hundt and the gang).
Actually, if you go to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals you can find out about homosexuality in the animal kingdom. It's actually pretty common.
And here's a quote you can chew over from Salman Rushdie: "Fundamentalism isn't about religion. It's about power."
--Brad Hundt
Obviously, those animals chose to be gay because the influence of the liberal media.
"It is a self destructive, unimaginable horror of a lifestyle with disappointments and despair."
Sounds more like marriage to me.
From the Old Testament, Leviticus 18:22: "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." And Leviticus 20:13 adds, "they shall surely be put to death."
---
I love selective quoting of the Bible to "prove" a point.
Now quote the part of Hosea 13 where God told the Israelites to kill every man, woman and child living in Samaria, which he had promised to his people, including the lovely instruction to dash the children upon the rocks and rip open the pregnant women.
I think God wants me to have my neighbor's lot next door. Care to join me in the dashing and ripping?
And if your neighbor worked on Sunday, let me know what day you want to get together and stone him. And while we're at it, let's get us a couple of slaves. So much fun stuff in the Old Testament. To the homophobe who posted there recently, I'd like to mention that the "stuff" you're citing was written by men who lived thousands of years ago. It was a much different time, and they were largely ignorant people - ignorant of how the world around them worked, ignorant of science, ignorant of how their own bodies worked. If you want to base your live on that mumbo jumbo, knock yourself out, but the rest of us shouldn't be compelled to live in the ignorant dark ages with you.
Yes Brant, the ancients were ignorant of everything compared to you. The man that calls everyone a homophobe or such when they disagree with you.
Name calling does little to improve your argument, but it does display a bitter pettiness.
The ancients btw were informed on human behavior and actions, hence some of the great philosophers that came from this time period. Many of them would actually agree with you today, other would disagree. I sure that men like St. Thomas Aquinas were ignorant savages compared to you, Hundt, and Ellipses. His writings pale in comparison to your own and esp. Ellispes snarky daily comments designed to anger rather than inform.
Yes, Brant there is those that disagree with you and they are not all ignorant, racist, bigots, homophobes or whatever name you call them today.
You had to flame, it is your nature.
I have to agree that here on U.S. ground it is predominantly heterosexual whites that dictate what is moral and just. Therefore, the comment was not idiotic at all. It was quite accurate. Hate and intolerance of course is everywhere, Islam cultures included. Sadly, the U.S. led by mainly white males, continue to show young ones that discrimination and exclusion is okay. As U.S. citizens, we should lead the world by example showing that hate, discrimination and intolerance is unacceptable. This country is a melting pot full of different ideas and cultures...that's what makes us unique and beautiful. Right, Dale?
My brother and I were raised by two wonderful women who were together 67 years. They were ostracized by the church and told their "choice" and "love" should be hidden, therefore, lived mainly in seclusion. My Mom and Aunt S (daughter of a hateful, white politician who denied the rights of blacks in the 50's and 60's) were together longer than any heterosexual couple I've ever known (most of my friend's marriages have ended in divorce). Due to unique circumstances, my wonderful parents were denied simple rights in their later years - the ones that most married couples enjoy - which created much sadness and financial strain. This broke my heart more than you can imagine. I am so proud to be their daughter. They gave me the gift of compassion, an open-mind and friendship which helps me to be a better spouse and mother and I will champion any effort to support love and equality for all.
Yeh Vermont!
St. Thomas was a 13th century monk... Counted among his major contributions is his ability to basically restate Aristotle's Physics... While, no doubt, rather intelligent... unless he managed to stash some scrolls away detailing the microscopic organisms that cause disease, the gravitational force exerted by every particle in the universe, and a schematic for the iPhone, then yes... he was ignorant on a number of topics.
I have an idea... if you don't like the idea of two dudes getting married... don't marry a dude.
"Just because a small group of individuals choose to be gay doesn't mean we as a society should change the laws to conform to their wishes."
Right. But that doesn't just apply to homosexuals. It applies to atheists, polygamists, racists, bigots, homophobes, etc.
"Just because a small group of individuals choose to be gay doesn't mean we as a society should change the laws to conform to their wishes."
Nor does it mean that we should change the laws to punish them for their behavior. There's a big difference between being gay and being a racist or a bigot.
". . . change the laws to punish them for their behavior."
You've got me confused. Are there laws against homosexual relationships in this country? What we're talking about here is the law of inclusion, not exclusion.
There are laws on the books of several states specifically against sexual acts that target homosexuals... and beyond that, some states have changed their existing marriage laws to specify "man and woman"... whereas before, marriage was a little more vague.
The funniest (or saddest) line in this entire debate came from the person who said "just because a group of people choose to be gay." Priceless.
I don't recall "homosexuality" being one of the choices on Career Day.
The funniest (or saddest) line in this entire debate came from the person who said "just because a group of people choose to be gay." Priceless.
Great observation. The comment is of the greatest value, making it the one comment nobody can value any higher. Why? Because it is the truth. Speaking of the ... less in this thread, much of the banter is worthless. Along the way, truth really seems to have taken a big hit, given no value, much less given any position in the discussion.
If you really believe that the vast majority of gay people chose to be gay, you are stupid. I know that's harsh, but there's just no other way to put it. That's exactly what I'm talking about when I speak of the Bible coming from the dark ages. People did not then recognize, I am sure, that we all are born with a sexual orientation. We, at least the moderately intelligent people in our society, understand that now. I you wish to use that as the basis of your hate - that people are choosing a "lifestyle" that brings them scorn and ridicule, tears apart families and may even lead to them being killed by the truly sick people in our society - then you go ahead. I pity you.
There is a good reason to be pitied: (1 Cor 15)
16For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.
But, believing that some choose to live a homosexual lifestyle is not one of the reasons.
Well... there seems like a super simple way to settle this (not that it needs settled)...
Gay people: Did you make a choice to be gay? When did you make that choice? Why did you make that choice?
I am heterosexual... I never made that choice... I just always dug chicks... And when I hit puberty, I wanted to dig them even more and with much more frequency.
You know, if I choose a red sedan... I can go back later and choose a blue coupe. Just because I picked the red sedan once, doesn't doom me to a life of red sedans.
However, I am wholly incapable of choosing to be gay... At least, whole hog... I lack something... the ability to perform, I guess... I simply am physically incapable of having sex with a man. I'd turn the key, and the engine wouldn't start.
How bout you gay guys? Can you renege on your choice?
How bout you gay guys? Can you renege on your choice?
Many do renege on their choice. Also, many who are on the other side make their choice to homosexual lifestyle. Your logic about car colors helps reinforce the notion that living a homosexual lifestyle is, in fact, a choice. Thanks for making the point so clearly.
Are you one of those who is to be pitied according to the passage of 1 Corinthians? It is my desire that not to be the case.
If I may be permitted to speak for Ellipses, that wasn't logic, it was an analogy. And you can pity me all you want for being an atheist. I just can't logically hitch my wagon to man-made fairy tales. I think the Bible has many good lessons for us, but in my mind, anyone who believes that every word of it is the unvarnished truth and a perfect blueprint for living their lives is a nitwit. If I'm wrong, I'll have to learn to like really hot weather. If I'm right, I'm worm food, just like you. The whole central concept of Christianity just seems wrong to me. Why would I be attracted to a religion led by a God who says, "Believe in me, or I'll torture you mercilessly for all eternity."? Nice sales pitch.
Brant, you've uncovered the basic flaw in all your arguments. "Believe in me ..." isn't the issue. Rather "Believe me." There is a huge difference. Many claim belief in God (even Satan, demons), but that does not mean the believe Him.
Your question is addressing the matter from the backside. You are asking why God would put anybody into an eternal hell. The more important question: Why does He permit anybody to escape eternal hell? And, why would He extend His grace to some so that they can enjoy an eternal relationship with Him? Rather than being condemning, we ought to be thankful that He provides a way for us out of that unpleasant situation. "... don't eat of the fruit, or you will die ...." is the very basic agreement God made with mankind. The agreement was broken, and therefore deserve His wrath. But, thanks to Him being not only Just, but also the Justifier. Do we think that there are no consequences for a broken contract (unlike pro sports figures, coaches, etc.)?
You are condemning something you haven't taken time to try to understand. There is ample room for reason in the matter. No, a few years in Sunday School as a child, sitting in church pews for a decade (or two, three?), does not necessarily bring it to understanding. Being open to truth is what is important -- could happen in a small child.
When you are saying I am condemning something I haven't tried to understand, you are wrong. I went to church as a youngster, but even though I gave in to the pressure from the church leaders to be baptized, I never believed what I was hearing. Logic told me that it was false. When you say I should be open to the "truth" of Christianity, what you're really saying is that I should just ignore what I really believe and bathe myself in blind faith. You either have faith or you don't. I have studied Christianity a great deal. I'm not going to go on Jesus Jeopardy or anything, but I have a good working knowledge of the religion. And I think it's a crock. Always will. Even on my deathbed. One either has that blind faith, or one does not. I don't. And I don't want the angry, hateful, discriminatory beliefs of right-wing fringe Christians to be the basis for our government. Since you ask me to be open to Christian beliefs, I might ask you to be open to rational thought. But I don't think either of us, at this stage of our lives, is going to switch teams.
But again the key question is, what is truth? Is truth only those things that can be proved, or does it extend to things taken on faith? It takes a lot of faith to believe in the inneracy of the Bible. If god is all knowing, why didn't he know that Eve would listen to the snake? Why didn't he know where Adam and Eve were hiding in the garden? If god were just, why didn't he just kick the crap out of the snake and let Adam & Eve off with a warning? Why would a benevolent god condemn every man following Adam to labor and every woman following Eve to the pain of childbirth because of the acts of two people who were tricked by a crafty opponent? I'm not a believer in original sin or the sins of the father being visited on the son.
If God gave us free will, he gave us the ability make our own decisions, right or wrong. If you're willing to take the stand that discriminating against homosexuals is the right thing to do, I hope you're willing to be proved wrong if and when Judgment Day comes.
The hell and damnation part of the bible you talk of Brant mostly exists in the Old Testament. Jesus' teachings are based on humanity, love, devotion to your fellow man, self evaluation, etc. It's hard to find a lot of fault with that type of thinking.
Humanity, love and devotion to your fellow man ... unless he happens to be gay.
Teams, huh? The use of this term reveals your lack of understanding (not withstanding all the talk of time spent with Christianity). Consider the basic idea of a team. A team is a group of people with a common goal, each striving on behalf of the team, to achieve a goal, often a victory. Christianity is as far from a team as east is from the west. As a child of God who has been redeemed by the finished work of Jesus Christ, the victory of salvation is already won. There is no striving, as there is nothing, absolutely nothing, that can be done on our part to achieve salvation. There is no teamwork, as each person does nothing on behalf of another to grasp the victory already declared.
So, no there will be no switching of teams, because there is no team. There is only one way to salvation, that is of Jesus Christ alone. You can use the team idea to portray a sporting event, but one's spiritual well-being is of far greater importance than any sporting event.
Quoting post of 11:34 pm: If God gave us free will, he gave us the ability make our own decisions, right or wrong. If you're willing to take the stand that discriminating against homosexuals is the right thing to do, I hope you're willing to be proved wrong if and when Judgment Day comes.
I don't know your reference here. Are you speaking of the Bema judgment? I can only presume so, because the judgment associated with salvation has already happened.
Usually, discrimination is used to make a separate assessment, to separate out for some reason. Yes, those choosing to live a homosexual lifestyle are separated out, just like those choosing to live a life of adultery, those who choose to life a life filled with greed, pride, lust, perversion, or any other wrongful behaviors. All are on the same plane. None are more egregious, or less so, than any other.
The pro-homosexual lifestyle folks often pick out this one behavior for criticism. There is not a criticism of our disdain for adulterous relationships, for example. Both adulterous relationships and homosexual lifestyle are wrong, both do not meet the standards God has set for mankind. We all make choices of wrongful behaviors, every day -- myself the chief of those wrong choices. These assessments have absolutely nothing to do with man's standards, consenting adults, or whatever other reason might be advanced to cover up wrongful behavior.
For those leveling criticism of disdain for wrongful behaviors, what is the standard for your behavior? By what standard do you render "good" and "not good?" You cannot just pick and choose, being driven by an emotion of the time, something that varies with time. To take this approach suggests no absolute standard, no absolute truth. If truth is varying, then what is left?
When I reach the Bema seat, I will have to answer for all my wrongful choices -- yes, the list is long. And, undoubtedly some rewards that could have been within my grasp will not be awarded. But, I do know that I will already have been judged with regard to the question of salvation -- already covered by the finished work of Jesus Christ. And, yes, even today, I know my faith is not in vain because He is risen!
One of our major disagreements centers on your assertion that people choose to be gay. I think that's just ridiculous, and so, I think it's horrifically wrong for you to discriminate against someone because of the way they were born. They are one of God's creations, you might say, and they should be embraced as they are.
Hmmm... I can cheat on my wife with another woman (or hundreds of women), leave my wife, get an under the table job to avoid alimony and/or child support, max out the credit cards on my way out, and bring home all kinds of STD's before leaving...
And then marry one of my hoes on the side... right there before God in a big old church.
Or... I could realize at age 12 that I'm gay... never have sex or engage in any kind of pre-marital sinful activity... meet a guy in college, fall in love, buy a house together, live a committed, monogamous relationship... and spend our life unmarried, paying higher taxes, not sharing health insurance, having no legal hospital visitation rights, having no legal claim on property if the other guy gets hit by a truck before we do up our estate, and being ridiculed and scorned by the Just-as-fallen-as-anyone-else "Christians"...
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home