Two gay stories stuck out today, so here they are.
#1: I wonder what Queers For Palestine, or Queers United against Israeli Terrorism, have to say about this story?
#2: Pamela Anderson has ended another marriage, this one after only five months. The former husband was once married to Shannen Doherty for nine months, and was the male fling in Paris Hilton's home sex video. Throw in Britney Spears' first marriage--what was it, 48 hours?--and I'm forced to wonder how marriage of the 1.5-6% of the population that's gay could possibly undermine the institution of marriage more than the heterosexuals mentioned above have.
12 comments:
I've never seen you discuss the issue before -- what's your opinion on gay marriage?
That last comment--grossly inappropriate. As to the former: I support gay marriage ambivalently. In other words, if it becomes legal in more and more places, I'm fine with that. If it doesn't, I'm fine with that, too. Most of the arguments I've heard *against* gay marriage are extremely weak, IMNSHO, but so are the arguments in *favor* of gay marriage. I absolutely support gay civil unions, though, and the libertarian streak in me thinks government should get out of the "marriage" business altogether.
Do try not to be a jacquesasse.
If it came up as a proposition in CA, would you vote yes or not vote?
The last time there was some proposition on the subject, I don't think I cast a vote for it either way. Probably would do the same thing next time, too.
I could support gay marriage if the churches were not forced to endorse it or to perform the ceremonies. If gay marriage was much like the current civil marriages before a judge, I think that's equitable and just.
Just my two cents worth...
Churches aren't *forced* to conduct any marriages. I think *only* churches should conduct marriages. If the government needs to be involved at all, it's only to recognize a civil union of 2 consenting adults.
Of course, my idea might necessitate a complete, ground-up overhaul of family law, which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.
Actually, I *have* addressed the gay marriage issue before:
http://rightontheleftcoast.blogspot.com/2007/06/gay-marriage.html
http://rightontheleftcoast.blogspot.com/2006/07/gays-why-this-support-for-democrat.html
http://rightontheleftcoast.blogspot.com/2006/06/nea-will-introduce-yet-another-gay.html
http://rightontheleftcoast.blogspot.com/2006/05/i-support-federalism.html
I've mentioned Queers For Palestine before, too:
http://rightontheleftcoast.blogspot.com/2006/11/what-will-queers-for-palestine-do-now.html
As for other "gay" topics, type the word "gay" into the search box at the top of this page and see all the posts that come up.
Much to my surprise, *many* came up. So much for never addressing the topic.
I challenge my readers, though, to pigeonhole me on the topic. You'll probably find some of these posts that you agree with, and others that you don't. And you know what I say to that? GOOD! We don't need to be lemmings, let's think for ourselves.
But don't you see? If we allow gays to get married, then by sexuality diffussion, then Pamela Anderson will turn at least bisexual, and so she will be attracted to more people and so will be tempted to stray more quickly leading to MORE divorces.
Also, won't somebody think of the children!!
To be serious for a while, I am not convinced the government should be in the marriage/civil union business at all, other than when courts act as the final arbiter of contract dispute. Let people draw up whatever cohabitation/power of attorney rights they want. No doubt you would end up with a basic package that most people would opt for, and they could have whatever ceremony they wanted to mark the occassion.
Bad weather testament get on Sunday and SEO from our sites. [url=http://www.onlinecasinotaste.co.uk/]online casino games[/url] online casino Preparations are underway to punter the casino will match buck for dollar the depository made by the new guest up to some terminal point. http://www.tasty-onlinecasino.co.uk/
Post a Comment