Friday, December 9, 2011


Yeah, I'm ordained. Deal with it.
One of the subjects that often seems to divide democrats and republicans is how to handle marriage, especially as is pertains to "gays."

The right wing can be heard screaming that homosexual marriages will ruin the sanctity of marriage. And while, I've personally interpreted marriage to be define the joining of two people who love each other into a committed relationship, apparently, that's not enough. Reading between the lines, others infer that specific genitalia, i.e., the joining of a penis and a vagina, is required to maintain the sanctity. Certainly, while God (?) didn't spell it out, you can't have a loving relationship without the prerequisite genitals.

So okay, maybe they're right. The sanctity of marriage is being threatened. So instead of allowing dirty, heathen, gays to marry, maybe we need to be more strict. Why do religious leaders stop at prohibiting homosexuals from marrying?

Why don't we, instead, make marriage MORE of a commitment.

I say, you're allowed ONE government sanctioned marriage unless a spouse dies. After all, isn't marriage a lifetime commitment?

Could a republican, say, a serial husband like current leader in the polls, Newt Gingrich support such an idea?

What about penalties for adultery?

Could ANY politician support such an idea?

Unless pro-marriage homophobes stand up and argue for stricter marriage rules, I say they are all hippocrates. In an era when media weddings like that crazy TV chick with no appreciable talent (honestly can't remember her name and don't care enough to look it up) can have a multi-million dollar wedding that lasts less than 90 days, and the leading republican presidential candidate is on his third marriage after cheating on the first two wives, the problem is certainly NOT same-sex marriage.

No comments: