Tuesday, June 17, 2008

Gay Marriage, No Thanks


" The social institution under which a man and a woman live as husband and wife by legal or religious commitments."


This one sentence, is and has always been, the civilized world's definition for marriage. It defines the institution that my wife and I entered some 28.5 years ago. We took it seriously then and we still do today, more seriously in fact than our parents or any of our siblings. I believe in it and I am proud of our success. I am not the least bit interested in having it redefined by a small but vocal group of practitioners of aberrant behaviors.


Homosexuals have the right to do what they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, but they don't have a right to change the meaning of a word or of an age old institution in order to allow themselves entry. If, through political correctness, we allow every deviant 3% of our population to redefine our terms then soon nothing will mean anything and the greatest of all civilizations will cease to exist.


Marriage, as it has been defined for centuries, is the foundation of the family and the family is the foundation of civilization. Those who would avoid chaos and anarchy would do well to take note of that.

8 comments:

King Selfish said...

Indeed. My sympathy for homosexuals who wish to marry is secondary to my belief that traditional marriage is the cornerstone of decent society. I hold this view knowing full well that there are many "enlightened" types who will dismiss me as a narrow-minded bigot. I suspect these same people struggle to walk and chew gum.

(Archduke, readers of this blog should thank you. I was planning an obnoxiously long post on this topic.)

theguywithoutastupidname said...

you sound like a babtist. As odd as they may be they are still american citizens and should be allowed all the same rights and benifits as you or me. If they want to marry then they should be allowed to do so. Sometimes words in laws have to be changed as much as we hate to admit it it is still the right thing to do. If we didn't change some of these words then 75% of the pro football players would still be sold at auctions as livestock to pick cotton, women would not be allowed to vote, and instead of running to the store and grabbing a six pack of your favorite non-mexican beer whenever you want you would have to schedule a meeting in the woods with a hillbilly for a bottle of moonshine that he made in his storm cellar. And we all know that your just upset because now that you can run out to california and lawfully marry roy williams you realize that he is much too young for you.

The Archduke of Arrogance said...

I think you should change your name to, theguywhocannotspellorcomprehendwhathereads. After rereading my post I fail to see where I sound like a Baptist(this is the correct spelling) I never mentioned hell, or Jesus. I am not religious but I am a firm believer in the supremecy of traditional Western culture. As far as rights and benefits(again this is the correct spelling) homosexuals are already in possession of the same R&B's that the rest of us are. The problem is, marriage, by definition, requires "one set each, opposing plumbing". The union that they wish to enter may be valid but it's not marriage.

There is a huge difference between changing words and redefining words. Going from "all men can vote" to "all citizens can vote" is an example of changing words in a law. Taking a word with a clear and precise meaning and changing it to mean something entirely different is redefinition. Frivolous redefinition will lead to chaos especially where the law is concerned.

This issue is one of many small but deliberate attacks on Western civilization. It fits in nicely with other idiocy like, unilateral personal disarmament, reparations for blacks, the anti smoking movement, the wussification of American males, no tolerance fighting policies on elementary school playgrounds, no tolerance kissing policies on elementary school playgrounds, not keeping score in childrens sports, lowering physical requirements for women so that that they can participate in activities where they don't belong, lowering mental requirements for negroes and mayztincs so that they can participate in activities where they don't belong, ad infinitum.

Finally, for your information, what Roy and I have transcends age or legal terminology.

theguywithoutastupidname said...

sometimes when i am wrong i resort to correcting peoples grammar and spelling as well because that is the only leg i have to stand on. Back to the real discussion at hand, my merrian-webster dictionary that I obviously do not study enough to keep up with you mental giants defines marriage as "the state of being united to another person as a contractual relationship according to a law or custom". It says nothing of a man and woman unless that is what the LAW states, so according to Mr. Webster nobody is trying to change the definition of the word since two homosexuals are also two people, they are just trying to change the wording of the law just as I had previously posted. maybe your baPtist dictionary has another definition that I am not aware of explaining how if two funny boys get married the united states will crumble but right now i just don't see that happening.

The Archduke of Arrogance said...

That's interesting about you only correcting people's grammar and spelling when you have a weak argument. I'm not that way, I correct people when their sloppy grammar and spelling makes them appear less intelligent than I know them to be. But hey, different strokes.

The definition I used in my post was from a Random House dictionary, so I checked my MerriaM Webster dictionary(I don't have a Merrian Webster, they're probably rare) and it defined marriage as "living together as husband and wife" it also defined husband as being "a man married to a woman" and wife as being a "woman married to a man".
As far as the LAW goes, every state, with the exception of CA. defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, so in order to change it they must redefine the word, just like I said.

As far as Mr. Random, Mr. Merriam, and Mr. Webster being Baptists, I doubt it. Your failure to see how this and the other activities I mentioned in my previous comment hurt not only America but all of Western civilization, are just that, a failure to see. It brings to mind the old saw "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."

Your opinion is valid and I will vigorously defend your right to it, but it differs from mine. In fact it was your questioning of my comments on this subject that forced me to focus and define my position. I am grateful.

When you choose to comment on this exalted forum, don't be suprised to find yourself skewered by my rapier wit, it happens to the best of them. As your very wise old dad used to tell you "when you mess with the bull, you get the horns."

theguywithoutastupidname said...

ok, merrian was a typo and im not much of a typer since the N is right next to the M i do that from time to time. Don't get lazy because from now on I will keep a watchful eye on your spelling. I never thought my points on the subject would change your mind being as narrow as it is, not many new thoughts can fit in there. I am happy to see however that there is somebody to pick up where jerry falwell left off and Im sure he is thanking you from heaven above for your christian crusading on such a blasphemous issue

army_wife603 said...

Here is another reason to dislike Mayztincs.....
http://www.modbee.com/1623/story/331704.html

The Archduke of Arrogance said...

It would appear that theguywithoutastupidname has a one track mind, and unfortunately the track it's on is off topic. As I have stated and as he well knows, I am not religious and have not once mentioned religion as a reason for being against gay marriage.

Mindless religious zealots like the fact that their faith comes with a prefab set of beliefs i.e. " if the church is for it then I'm for it." The same is true for the mindless religion hater, "if the church is for it then I'm against it." Both types make for boring, repetitive debates.

If name calling is all you've got, Stickboy, then you lose, but thanks for playing.

P.S. As far as you calling me narrow minded, "Mr. Pot meet Mr. Kettle."