Is anyone else completely bored with the subject of homosexuality? I just don't find it very interesting; never have, really. I can't seem to avoid the subject, though. In college, I wrote an opinion column for the newspaper, and people were always accusing me of being "against" gays, when I never wrote a single word about them.
From a religious perspective, I believe what the Church teaches. From a civic perspective, I would just as soon leave homosexuals alone, as long as they aren't out trying to indoctrinate our children or corrupt our institutions. I'm willing to bet a majority of Americans feel the same way: do what you want, and we won't stop you, but we'd just as soon not think about the things you do in private.
This year, it's astonishing that we're going to spend a huge amount of time publicly arguing about whether marriage is between a man and a woman. Doubtless, next year we will have another battle about whether water is "wet," not dry.
I agree. The whole issue is getting really old, really fast.
I keep wondering why some heterosexuals feel so threatened by a minority that comprises less than 3% of the population.
I also can't figure out how or why this 3% of the population will decimate the institution of marriage, particularly when Britney Spears and Hollywood celebrities have already done a more thorough job of destruction than some heterosexuals could ever wish homosexuals to accomplish.
(You heard it from me first: liberals ought to be thanking Britney Spears for what she did for the marriage agenda.) ;-)
Katherine,
Why should the institution of marriage be radically redefined for a measly three percent of the population?
Katherine, that's a questionable line of reasoning. So if your carpet is stained with food after a big party, you might as well start relieving yourself on the floor, since it's already messed up?
All the arguments about homosexuality make me think I'm reading the Letters to the Editor section of a university newspaper.
But then, I wish much of the jawing that takes place in comment boxes would cease. I know people have differing opinions, but the firefights simply become unbearable.
I'll put an end to it now.
I'm right. Whatever the subject is, I'm right.
You're a heretical schismatic apostate. Whatever the subject is, you're a heretical schismatic apostate.
But I digress....
Y'all realize I'm kidding, eh?
The only people I would want to argue with are people who do not use either their real names or their real e-mail addresses in comment boxes.
Oh, forget it. Arguing is simply not worth anything.
We don't care if you're kidding or not; we're just glad you're offering comments. When is Onealism going to return?
Bryan,
Thanks a bunch! Thanks for asking about the blog.
I have traded onealism for lessons on how to operate QuickBooks.
I've added a few comments in comment boxes, but blogging demands a level of creative output that I would prefer to use for the sake of my parish.
Blogs such as this one have much better capability of reporting news and commentary than I could ever dream of doing.
I am thrilled to have met wonderful bloggers, but I believe that I am performing the role that God wants me to play and I am living the happy life as a parish priest that God wants me to live.
To clarify what I think Katherine was trying to say using your analogy. You are making a big deal about the person who spills water on your rug, while people are relieving themselves on it.
Back to the original point, I fail to see how same sex marriages will in any way harm the institution of marriage. I don't see how having a homosexual couple marry harms your own marriage or makes it any less a beatiful expression of love and devotion between two people. As long as the people in the marriage care about each other and are devoted to each other (which same sex couples can do), why does it matter if they are both male or both female. The two purposes of marriage that Pete lists don't provide enough reason to prevent same sex couples from marrying. There can exist a complementarity between two men or two women. Although I am not a homosexual, I have several male friends who I believe compliment men I compliment them back. As for procreation, are marriages where the man or the woman has become sterile and lost their ability to produce offspring purposeless? Is a marriage pointless if no children are created?
Sorry if you got confused by my last post I wsa trying to reply to Pete Vere's entry which was also about gay marriages. If someone in charge could please fix my mistake (move it to the comments on Pete's entry or just delete it) it would be appreciated.
Bring back Semi-demi-supra-Molinism! Any opposition?
People are always speaking up about homosexual issues.
When are people going to start speaking up about the fact that women are required to cover their heads in public!