I took my iMac back to the Apple Store for repairs, for the second time, same issue with the display. Word to the wise, buy Apple care when you buy their products, they appear to break easily. After exiting the store, an earnest young man with longish hair and a wan mustache and square, Olbermann style glasses approached me with a clipboard and asked "Do you support gay marriage?" Uh oh, I thought, here we go. "No I don't," I responded, smiling pleasantly. "Why is that?" he asked, looking a little animated.
B-Daddy: "Because it impinges on my free speech rights."
Wan Mustache: "How is that?"
B-Daddy: "Because it compels me to recognize a union between two men as a marriage and I choose not to do so?"
Wan Mustache: "Do you think it's right to teach our children to treat people differently because they're different?"
B-Daddy: "The are different or they choose to be?"
Wan Mustache: (visibly upset) "That's a glib answer, you should have an open mind and read up on the subject." He then abruptly walked away.
I note a couple of points. I never got upset, remained calm and pleasant, but the young man became angry that I would not agree with him and he refused to talk to me further. Yet somehow I am the hater? Why do gays seem to crave the societal approval that gay marriage would seem to confer? They have the same rights as a straight married couple, just not the title. As a Christian, I don't crave approval from Buddhists or Muslims, or atheists for that matter. I am willing to engage them in discussion and explain my faith, but if they disagree that is in God's hands, and doesn't change my opinion of my own belief. Gay marriage advocates are very emotional abut the subject; if they were certain of their own life style's morality, they would not be so hung up on this issue.
By the way, I don't think the government has any business discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation with regards to the rule of law. I am not even sure that the government should be granting marriage licenses, but that is a post for another day. (I believe so strongly in marriage, that I don't think government should be fiddling around in it, same goes for education.) If someone believes they were born a certain way, I am not going to argue. But behavior is choice, regardless of our genes. I can be born with the gene or genes that gives a predilection for addiction to alcohol and still not become an alcoholic, so the whole "I was born this way" argument is flawed.
*FTC Disclaimer: I may or may not have received valuable consideration in the form of swag, jack and/or coin to endorse these products. I am not saying and have the right not to do so.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
You're right the government should not be in the marriage, but your presumption their indignity over the issue is based on their assurances or lack of certainty of their own morality shows a certain level arrogance on your part.
ReplyDeleteDid he report to you he was uncertain of his morality?
Most gay people are unsure of our morality more than their own. We sit in churches with ministers preaching the immorality of homosexual lifestyles surrounded by gamblers, alcoholics, abusers, cheaters and hypocrites. These churches don't have a homo population within, so whom are they trying to heal with the anti-gay rhetoric?
Knowing you, he was treated fair and you would have engaged him in a civil discourse, but knowing as many gays as I do, I know they’re not uncertain about the morality of gay marriage.
Marriage is for the Church. All other contracts should have equal standing under the law. Get the government out of the marriage business!
'Dawg, I base my assertion on his behavior and my experience. Agree with you on the issue of government out of the marriage business.
ReplyDeleteIf we asked our churches to draw up the contract for marriage, some people might be surprised to find contractual penalties for abuse and infidelity included, but that might be a good thing for the institution.
When did those agreements get lost?
ReplyDeleteYou being reasonable threatened his world view; of course he got angry.
ReplyDeleteB-Daddy, though I agree with your overall sentiment, I'm not sure what this has to do with free speech.
ReplyDeleteIf a law is passed that I disagree with, how does that effect my free speech rights?
If Bruce and Stevie are recognized as "married" by the state that does not impinge on my right to not recognize them as such in my own mind.
"Why don't you support gay marriage?"
ReplyDelete"Because I know where babies come from."
Replace marriage with civil unions for the legal rights that are currently granted through marriage. Then, if people want to have a religious marriage, let them do so through their church.
ReplyDeleteI have had similar encounters with those who oppose gay marriage, They get pretty emotional also sometimes. I think it is an individual thing, not related to the position one takes.
Steve
Screw civil unions. Make a class of legal whatever that's for folks who are having families. That's why the gov't is supposed to be involved anyways.
ReplyDeleteDean,
ReplyDeleteAs a manager and employer, and potentially a landlord again someday, I am required to recognize their union as a "marriage" as a legal matter.
Why is it this knee-jerk reaction to gay marriage? My initial response to the post was Bdaddy's presumption of the gay marriage proponent’s uncertainty of his morality. As he posted, it is based on his assertion of the proponent’s behavior and his own experience; however, Steve is correct there is the same behavior exhibited by the anti-gay majority.
ReplyDeleteLook at Foxie and KT's response. Marriage protects more than a family. Marriage protects partners from being abused by unforgiving families subsequent to years of partnership.
By KT’s argument, we can't allow marriages without children. And by Foxie's argument, single folks have lesser standing in the eyes of the government.
We can allow a pedophile like Micheal Jackson to get married to Marie Presley? Don't get me started on the aberrations to marriage allowed by the state……And we get weird about the gays?
I was also a bit confused with the free speech issue, but not as perplexed as I was with the presumption he was of guilty conscience.
It always puzzled me why homosexuality became such a hot button issue with Christians. If it were so "damn" important, wouldn't Jesus have mentioned it directly in the Gospels? Instead he preached of forgiveness and salvation. His ire was against hypocrisy, greed and corruption.
So the Christians out there need to heal the sick marriages within the flock, and the government needs to quit calling the crappy civil unions “marriage”.
You think the government should be involved in marriage because adult people's families might get upset at their choice of spouse after that spouse is gone? Really?
ReplyDeleteAnd you think MJ's (accused and homosexual) pedophilia had anything to do with his being legally married to a woman?
Oh! And then the eternal, "hey, some people who call themselves this aren't good, so you can't ever even speak about it until that isn't true, even though it will probably be used until eternity."
And folks wonder why there can't be any reasonable discussion on this. If they don't walk away and refuse to talk, they're throwing strawmen and red herrings.
Im just saying there is more to marriage than families, and maybe the MJ situation isn't the best example, but there is alot more wrong with the government institution of marriage than homosexual partnerships.
ReplyDeleteSo his pedophilia doesn't have anything to do with him marrying a woman..ok..I'm just saying it's not right to have a sham marriage, yet it happens all the time.
Some folks don't have the guts to fight so they walk away, and some throw straw men. As long as legitimate disagreements are met with vitriol and disgust we get nowhere. I am a heterosexual, Christian man, married for 26 years and raised three children.
I see a certain amount of anger and hypocrisy with the criticism of gay marriage by the Christian community. I look at the non-attendence of the homosexuals in church and the attendence of abusers and cheaters. I read Matthew 7:5 and know the spirit of my creator. I wonder why we think the sanctity of marriage is threatened by the homos when the sanctity of marriage is far more threatened by divorce, infidelity, and abuse.
I feel disheartened by the tone of comments. Of course they look at us and walk away. Our position hurtful and not in it's entirety with a pretense of having superior moral character rather than love and humility shown by our Savior.
Of course there should be reasonable discussion, but I can see where there is an impass whereby everyone gets upset. Just as I was upset with Bdaddy's presumption of the young man "with the wan mustache's" moral uncertainty. He should have engaged Bdaddy in a debate on the free speech issue. But he was pegged for a fag by his dress, mustache and demeanor and up against the probable false assumption he was aware of his own moral turpitude.
Have you ever tried to have normal conversation with a liberal, global warming nut or creation science wacko? That's the sad state of affairs with this discussion.
Im just saying there is more to marriage than families, and maybe the MJ situation isn't the best example, but there is alot more wrong with the government institution of marriage than homosexual partnerships.
ReplyDeleteSo his pedophilia doesn't have anything to do with him marrying a woman..ok..I'm just saying it's not right to have a sham marriage, yet it happens all the time.
Some folks don't have the guts to fight so they walk away, and some throw straw men. As long as legitimate disagreements are met with vitriol and disgust we get nowhere. I am a heterosexual, Christian man, married for 26 years and raised three children.
I see a certain amount of anger and hypocrisy with the criticism of gay marriage by the Christian community. I look at the non-attendence of the homosexuals in church and the attendence of abusers and cheaters. I read Matthew 7:5 and know the spirit of my creator. I wonder why we think the sanctity of marriage is threatened by the homos when the sanctity of marriage is far more threatened by divorce, infidelity, and abuse.
I feel disheartened by the tone of comments. Of course they look at us and walk away. Our position hurtful and not in it's entirety with a pretense of having superior moral character rather than love and humility shown by our Savior.
Of course there should be reasonable discussion, but I can see where there is an impass whereby everyone gets upset. Just as I was upset with Bdaddy's presumption of the young man "with the wan mustache's" moral uncertainty. He should have engaged Bdaddy in a debate on the free speech issue. But he was pegged for a fag by his dress, mustache and demeanor and up against the probable false assumption he was aware of his own moral turpitude.
Have you ever tried to have normal conversation with a liberal, global warming nut or creation science wacko? That's the sad state of affairs with this discussion.
Im just saying there is more to marriage than families, and maybe the MJ situation isn't the best example, but there is alot more wrong with the government institution of marriage than homosexual partnerships.
ReplyDeleteSo his pedophilia doesn't have anything to do with him marrying a woman..ok..I'm just saying it's not right to have a sham marriage, yet it happens all the time.
Some folks don't have the guts to fight so they walk away, and some throw straw men. As long as legitimate disagreements are met with vitriol and disgust we get nowhere. I am a heterosexual, Christian man, married for 26 years and raised three children.
I see a certain amount of anger and hypocrisy with the criticism of gay marriage by the Christian community. I look at the non-attendence of the homosexuals in church and the attendence of abusers and cheaters. I read Matthew 7:5 and know the spirit of my creator. I wonder why we think the sanctity of marriage is threatened by the homos when the sanctity of marriage is far more threatened by divorce, infidelity, and abuse.
I feel disheartened by the tone of comments. Of course they look at us and walk away. Our position hurtful and not in it's entirety with a pretense of having superior moral character rather than love and humility shown by our Savior.
Of course there should be reasonable discussion, but I can see where there is an impass whereby everyone gets upset. Just as I was upset with Bdaddy's presumption of the young man "with the wan mustache's" moral uncertainty. He should have engaged Bdaddy in a debate on the free speech issue. But he was pegged for a fag by his dress, mustache and demeanor and up against the probable false assumption he was aware of his own moral turpitude.
Have you ever tried to have normal conversation with a liberal, global warming nut or creation science wacko? That's the sad state of affairs with this discussion.