Less Seriousness, More Fun

Reading through recent posts, I've decided I'm getting way too serious. It's way past time to lighten up on my blogs.

There isn't really anything specific bugging me today, so I'll just run with some general stuff.

Know what the ACLU stands for? The Atheist Communist anti-Liberty Union

Now our school choirs can't sign Christmas music at their winter concerts anymore because it offends non-Christians? Give me a break! Carols are the most classic, uplifting music there is, and I'm getting really tired of the Grinches.

I just noticed a whole bunch of people who claim to be Christian Liberals and how they rationalize that. They've misinterpreted church teachings aimed at each of us as individuals and decided Jesus was talking about the Government when he said we should take care of the poor. They think since Jesus dined with sinners and saved the adulteress from stoning, he's "tolerant", ignoring the fact that he turned the lives of those sinners around and told the adulteress to, "Go, and sin no more". They all of a sudden have become Amish, embracing pacifism, but of course only when it's a Republican waging the war for our country's security. Funny how I never heard about their pacifist ideals back when we went to Bosnia and Somalia. All I wonder about is whether they're calculating rationalizers because of their political connections, or just ignorant about their faith.

Heard two funny stories today. Both about crazy people who shouldn't hold positions of authority. One was a city councilman in PA who tried to bully a booth vendor at a city market into taking down a picture of President Bush, because the councilman was offended by it. And the picture wasn't violent, pornographic, or anything - just your typical presidential portrait. The second was about the high school in GA that gives kids detention if they have to go to the bathroom during class. Hate to get diarrhea at that school; you could get a whole year of detention in a single day!

Thinking about the constant barrage of ads for viagara and related products for men of, well, my age. What is confusing is that since most guys our age were cut off by their wives years ago, what in the heck do they need these products for? (Don't answer that)

I'm looking forward to a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, a great 2005, and hopefully won't get thrown in jail for celebrating Christmas a year from now.

Why Civil Unions are Discriminatory

I'll bet you wonder what I'm talking about - discriminatory?

First of all, the talk of "Gay Marriage" is nothing but a transparent effort by the homosexual rights movement and their liberal friends to marginalize religion. You hear it in the constant barrage that says, "Nobody has the right to impose their morals on anyone else", or variations on that theme. I think the goal of the gay marriage proponents is probably more about removing religion from society than letting same-sex partners parade down the aisle and exchange rings, deciding which will wear the tux and which the white dress.

Taking away the whole religious disrespect aspect, the real remaining agenda is about benefits, which of course equals money. Gay couples want the same benefits of married families, like health insurance, survivor benefits, hospital visitation rights, etc. I maintain that's discrimination, and here's why:

When considering these benefits that today are generally provided only to married couples, think about the reasons why those benefits should be extended to any other sort of couple. To do this, I'll use the same arguments used by the gay rights crowd:

• A pair of adults committed to each other
• Both want to live in a "family" environment with full benefits to their family members

So, the question is, why should these benefits be provided to gay couples only? That is terribly discriminatory, just as the benefit plans of many corporations are already discriminating against other family units in favor of gay partnerships.

Let me create a scenario: Suppose due to tragic or unfortunate circumstances, my sister and I both were to find ourselves widowed or divorced, with minor children still in each of our households. So, to economize and regain a semblance of family life, my sister and I move into my home together and blend our children into a family unit. How would this situation differ from a homosexual couple in terms of access to family benefits?

The answer is that there is really only one difference, which is the presence or absence of sex in the relationship. (How many married people are already living in a partnership without sex? But, I digress.)

Ultimately, my point: To accord special status to homosexual couples at that very instant disenfranchises untold numbers of other family arrangements that in most cases would be more deserving of family benefits. Any committed family relationship living under the same roof, whether father/son, father/daughter., mother/son, mother/daughter, sister/brother, cousins, best friends, I could go on forever. Even hetero "shack-ups" aren't getting the corporate insurance benefits being given to homosexual couples already - that seems wildly discriminatory to me.

So, here's my take on the whole situation. Any unmarried adult should be able to name whomever they wish as their beneficiary or immediate family member without regard to gender or blood relationship. But I am strongly opposed to any special treatment for gay couples, because I will never believe that anyone is entitled to discriminatory rights just because of their chosen behavior. And that's not marriage, it's not even a civil union - it's just freedom.

(P.S. - Julie and Jill, don't worry, I'm not suggesting anything by the brother/sister household thing. I used it for illustration purposes only.)