Wow! I just went through a Facebook comment battle over gay marriage! I didn’t even offer support to either side but was attacked anyway! Oh, who am I kidding! I enjoyed it! I don’t think my friend Kate was offended by my position. I hope not. I just wanted to give a different perspective. Kate, still friends?

Well, the comments started over a YouTube video that supports “traditional values”, and takes a stance against gay marriage. Some of the comments called the group that made the video “ignorant” and other such derogatory terms. While I have to admit that the video was a little lame, I do tend to agree with the values that they support. I think they may have gone a little overboard, but it did raise some good questions.

One speaker in the video made a statement about allowing gay marriage saying that it would take away her rights. One of the commenters on Facebook made the statement that not allowing it took away rights from homosexuals. So there is the fundamental question. Who has the right to the way of life that they feel is right? Obviously, that is not for any of us to decide. Nor is for our government to decide. I bet they will anyway!

So in the comments on Facebook, after reading all of the conservative bashing comments, and the undying loyal support for homosexuality (mostly from heterosexuals?!?), I felt compelled to post this: “If it’s okay for homosexuals to fight for the right to marry, why is it wrong or ignorant for others to fight to keep traditional family values as the norm?”. Now bear in mind that I wasn’t looking to stir the pot. I just wanted to offer these people a different perspective. However, I must have stirred the pot! A couple of them took it quite personally and wasted no time in responding to tell me how they felt. Here is one of the comments. It is filled with fancy language and well, you’ll get the point.

“Because the Constitution allows one to fight for individual freedoms and equality and not for the oppression of others’ rights based on one’s own narrow definitions.

Despite the current state of the culture of the United States which accepts as subject for debate the right of homosexual Americans to have the same chances as heterosexuals, you cannot claim moral authority in the pursuit of chaining others to your religious traditions. Luckily, as we now do not accept the assertions that non-whites and women are not allowed the same Constitutional protections as the male, white privileged majority, our society will in time refuse to acknowledge the fallacious logic of your implicit claim, Mr. Toney, that an appeal to the status quo holds merit in modern, rational ethics.

Fight for whatever oppressive tradition you like, sir. You will not prevail, for the enemy you challenge is the future, and you fight only with outdated, obsolete weapons from the past.”

All that over a new perspective. Well, I didn’t respond directly to this one. I have enough respect for my friend Kate to keep my comments on her post friendly and not go looking for a fight. However, this is my world…

Nice citation of the constitution. Our government has been ignoring it for years unless it suits them. I guess, at the moment, a part of it suits you and your cause. Go with it. That is the liberal way.

I don’t claim moral authority. Nor do I want to chain anyone to anything. Certainly not religious traditions.  My logic is not fallacious, nor did I make an implicit claim that an appeal to the status quo holds merit anywhere. The weapons I fight with are not outdated. The future is not the enemy, and I don’t have to prevail. God will prevail. His word is the only weapon, and His kingdom is the future.

If you want to let homosexuals have civil unions, go for it! I really don’t care. Just don’t go teaching in schools that it is okay to be gay because it is not! Marriage has been in all cultures, for about 5000 years, defined as being between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN. Not two men, not two women, not one man and five women. Why do a bunch of sexual deviates think they have the right to redefine an institution that God created?

Yes, let them have civil unions, but not marriages. Let them have the financial benefits. Just don’t expect the Church condone or recognize it.

Just My Thoughts…

Oh, and this Facebook comment thing is still going on…and on…and on…

Related External Links

• THE THIRD PRINCE: THE FIRST 100 DAYS IN ALLEGORY « Marylou’s America

• The forgotten children in Malaysia | anilnetto.com

• Ypulse Essentials: Hasbro’s New Kids‘ Channel, Teen Fashion Goes …

• Biblically Correct, Not Politically Correct « I Took The Red Pill …

• Religion ghost drifting into baseball » GetReligion