Political Commentary, Science And Society, Social Commentary The Texas GOP June 22, 2022 Rand Simberg 14 Comments Thoughts on their anti-gay idiocy.
14 thoughts on “The Texas GOP”
I don’t support gay marriage in its current from because I don’t support civil marriage. Marriage is a religious rite, which the state is obliged to stay out of. I also don’t support giving churches tax breaks other than insofar as they qualify as charities. So when the Catholic church allows gay marriage, that’s its business and none of ours. How is civil marriage different from civil baptism, civil communion, or civil confession?
Full disclosure, I was raised as a Catholic but grew up to be an atheist. I’ve been married three times, once by a justice of the piece*, once by a Buddhist minister, and once by a civil magistrate. I was only interested in licensing pussy services, and would have been happy to just have a fuck contract, but guess what? Those are illegal. I took out a legal paternity declaration on my one child.
* And what a piece that wife was, speaking speaking of Freudian typos!
Out of curiosity, how do you feel about joint tax returns, or laws that give tax advantages to inheriting spouses?
I might be kidding myself, but I sort of think gay marriage might have been less of a hot button for both sides if the government was completely blind to the existence of marriage. (At least they’d be bothering the churches and not the government.) But of course, that was never going to happen.
When I was in a business partnership, we had to file joint returns for it, in addition to our regular joint returns with our wives. So my opinion on tax returns involves tar, feathers, an ignition source, and disposal in Boston Harbor. Preferrably at the site of Moon Island. [I was born in Boston, others may get the reference to Moon Island!]
I do think you’re right about the government being blind to marriage, per se. My feeling is, in our type of legal system, at least, marriage should remain a religeous rite, and everything else is contract law.
Should have stuck with the anti-groomer stuff. I wonder how much Democrats taking kids to strip shows played into this?
Nowhere does it say the LGBTQ populace should be persecuted. What it says is that they should not have any more protection then a heterosexual person and people should not be penalized if they don’t accept that lifestyle. Just as a gay person should not be subjected to legal penalties if they refuse to accept heterosexual lifestyle. Both lifestyles should be equally protected. It also says that marriage should be between a man and a woman as prescribe in the bible. Since marriage is a biblical or religious concept then it should be kept as originally defined. Civil unions, which have the same legal force as marriages, are acceptable.
The author’s example uses right handed versus left handed people. He is upset because the Texas GOP is against a special protected class for left handed people. What the Texas GOP wants is that both sets of people be treated equally and not have the left handed people treated as special.
Since marriage is a biblical or religious concept
Not true actually. For example, marriages of noble families and similar elites were insanely political (and had been that way for thousands of years). And it always had a strong economic basis too.
And marriage likely predates the written word, much less any book of the Bible. It’s certainly interesting how widespread it is in non-Christian societies, including those of old New World societies.
Not solely Biblical, but religious as such. You’d have a hard time finding a historical society that wasn’t subsumed by religion of one sort or another, unless you believe Marxism is actually real, than simply another sort of religion (by my lights, simply one more offshoot of Judaism, itself probably a yokel reaction to the rise of the Tophet Cult). My guess is, marriage probably arose near the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic, as soon as the Shaman and the Chief put their heads together and figured out they could get more power by licensing pussy and arranging for its distribution.
Pretty biased article, doncha think?
Acceptance of the Gay (LBGTQ ) lifestyle led to normalization and therefore an even faster breakdown of our society….which led to the “Groomers” and now the push for “Trans” kids….before they can even make that choice intelligently.
I have no issue with men or women who love other men or women (or whatever combination they wish to do)…but if you think that is the total of the goals for the activists then you are sadly naive.
A lot of posters at pjmedia have a special nickname for Rick Moran, and if you can’t guess what it is, well, you might be one. (Not that my name is immune from humorous and stunningly clever little plays-on-words, but I digress.)
Still… he might have a point in this case.
People who disagree on whether marriage were forged in Eden can agree that at a certain point in history the institution was found everywhere. All public institutions and social contracts, not just marriage, were immersed in religious rites yet addressed secular concerns. Marriage is relevant to the dual concerns of minimizing unrest (nothing sows unrest like the market for sexual partners) and reducing obstacles to assimilating youth into the learning curve of civilization (spousal/child abandonment is a critical obstacle). As stated in Loving v Virginia, “Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival.”
I used to have difficulty grasping Hegelian logic. I knew the basic formula – A and not-A are somehow synthesized – but for a long time I lacked real-world examples, until recently. The marriage squabble solved the riddle: synthesis is possible only by misstating the definition of A. The whole idea behind the Sexual Revolution was to divorce sexuality from the social contract. As people were still infatuated with weddings, a counterfeit concept of marriage emerged – an institution designed not to hold the married party accountable to each other and to society, but to provide the married party social acceptance and access to legal privileges. SSM is rooted in that false concept of marriage.
The absence of involvement by any anthropologists in the marriage squabble made me wonder if they all got Raptured, putting a kink in just about everybody’s interpretation of the Book of Revelation,
Anthropologists go along with whatever Progressive Marxist nonsense is popular that day.
Homogamy has the opportunity to moderate the self destructive gay culture but has it? Just because a person is gay, doesn’t mean they have to engage in the same lifestyle as the freaks.
So I read the article not expecting to find much agreement, but I do. I do think kicking log cabin Republicans out of the caucus is dumb; although I’m only hearing one side of the story, and we have a lot of counter productive Republicans in the GOP, such as Cornyn and Crenshaw. I do think the new plank wording starts off fine, but ends with something akin to promoting sodomy laws. I think our government has more important things to worry about than consensual sex acts of adults. The Bible also says god will sort them out and I don’t think he needs help. Finally I’m not opposed to the alternative wording. It is weaker, but frankly, I rather move on from fighting the interests of the Baptist church through government and have government focus on the economy.
That said, I don’t know the other side of the story. I do know that I to prefer government stay out of marriage and just handle the civil issues of splitting a financial partnership. I also know we have moved far beyond just allowing homosexual marriage to taking pre-teens and a fist full of dollars to lingerie drag shows in Dallas. Now isn’t the time to get weaker with the people promoting this.
I’ve been assured by Democrats on Twitter that the Log Cabin Republicans are a Nazi front group.
Funny, I heard they were a Nazi rear group… I’ll show myself out now…
Comments are closed.