What YOU Have In Common With Rush and Elton

[buffalo]

What YOU Have In Common With Rush and Elton

“What is wrong with Proposition 8 is that they went for marriage. Marriage is going to put a lot of people off, the word marriage… I don’t want to be married. I’m very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership… You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships." – Elton John

 Ain’t that a kick in the pants? As it  would seem, Elton John and Rush Limbaugh share the exact same opinion in  regards to gay marriage.  Coincidentally, so do a majority of  Americans. So does this mean that everyday Americans, politicians (both  Republican and Democrat), Rush Limbaugh and –gulp– Elton John all hate…  the gays?

At least that’s how mainstream media would try and spin it. Most leftists in the press have simply tried to bury those less than “typically queer” quotes. Why? Well, when Elton John speaks the truth, it disrupts the sensationalized narrative that the media and Hollywood have been setting for years; if you don’t support gay marriage, you must secretly despise gay people. It’s Hate vs. Gay. Period.

more…

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Personally, I think the state should stop performing “marriages” and just leave that to the religious institutions. The state offers civil unions, religious institutions offer marriage. Everybody wins.

 

[buffalo]

Personally, I think the state should stop performing “marriages” and just leave that to the religious institutions. The state offers civil unions, religious institutions offer marriage. Everybody wins.

The state has long recognized marriage as between one man and one woman. That tradition should continue.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

The state has long recognized marriage as between one man and one woman. That tradition should continue.

As long as the people vote that it should be between a man and a woman, great and I support that. But if we ever get in the minority I’d rather get rid of marriage completely in the secular snese and just leave it to the religious institutions then have the holiness of matrimony desecrated by false marriage.

 

[Newbie2]

What the author fails to take into consideration is the possibility that Elton John is in fact pro-gay marriage, but is a realist in the sense that if “gay marriage” is ever going to exist and be accepted nationwide is that proponents need to get there by incrementalism.

 

[buffalo]

What the author fails to take into consideration is the possibility that Elton John is in fact pro-gay marriage, but is a realist in the sense that if “gay marriage” is ever going to exist and be accepted nationwide is that proponents need to get there by incrementalism.

Maybe,

 

[catsrus]

What I have in common with these two?
Other than being of the human race, absolutely nothing.

 

[polkadots]

Personally, I think the state should stop performing “marriages” and just leave that to the religious institutions. The state offers civil unions, religious institutions offer marriage. Everybody wins.

This is what has puzzled me for a long time. The church doesn’t recognize civil marriages in general so why do we feel so threatened? I know people are scared of morals in popular culture, but they were pretty bad all throughout the Bible (popular culture I mean). Why don’t we focus more on bringing the Gospel to mankind rather than trying to mold them into our morals? Our morals only really make sense with Christ. that’s my perspective anyway.

 

[seeker57]

I hear many people toss out fears that gay marriage would somehow destroy the “sanctity of marriage,” or “sacrament of marriage,” etc.

I, frankly, don’t understand those fears.

Marriage laws have gained validity as a means to ensure inheritances, to restrict marriage among close relatives, such a cousins, and to prevent interracial marriage, which were illegal in the U.S. until California became the first state to invalidate the racial barrier in 1948, 19 years ahead of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Religious implications notwithstanding, the most prevailing reasons that I have heard regarding why gay men or lesbian women wish to marry are predominantly secular - the right to visit a partner in a hospital, to inherit property, or not have property stolen from them by the blood relatives of a deceased partner, the ability to have a partner included on health insurance benefits provided by employers, and the list goes on.

I rather agree with Elton John, but I would take it a step further and support civil partnerships for everyone, gay or straight, and let the churches perform whatever marriage rituals they desire for whomever they desire without the entanglement of government or secular interference.

I believe Rush Limbaugh is on wife No. 4. She is 30 years his junior, if what I read recently was accurate.

When it comes to marriage, heterosexuals have made such a botched job of it I often wonder why anyone would voluntarily agree to it.

Just my two cents worth.

 

[shelby2014]

Personally, I think the state should stop performing “marriages” and just leave that to the religious institutions. The state offers civil unions, religious institutions offer marriage. Everybody wins.

Well said! I agree!

There is just one thing I thought of, though - would not the legalization of gay marriage then lead to other types of “non-traditional” marriages such as polygamy, marriages to children, and marriages to animals, and marriages to siblings. I have already read examples of people wanting to be married to their pet or their brother because of the civil benefits.

 

[quiet52]

Personally, I think the state should stop performing “marriages” and just leave that to the religious institutions. The state offers civil unions, religious institutions offer marriage. Everybody wins.

Marriage is part of natural law, not merely religious law. Marriage provides for the perpetuation of society, and thus needs protection by society in order for society to continue. The Church teaches that we may not morally support sexual unions outside of marriage, because they are unnatural and do not serve the common good.

Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.htm

“The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.”

(excerpt from the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, written by then-Prefect Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, approved by Pope John Paul II, 2003)

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Marriage is part of natural law, not merely religious law. Marriage provides for the perpetuation of society, and thus needs protection by society in order for society to continue. The Church teaches that we may not morally support sexual unions outside of marriage, because they are unnatural and do not serve the common good.

Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.htm

“The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.”

(excerpt from the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, written by then-Prefect Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, approved by Pope John Paul II, 2003)

In an ideal world, I would keep opposite sex marriage but eliminate same-sex marriage even in secular institutions, yeah.

But we don’t live in an ideal world. Civil unions WILL be legalized, even if marriage isn’t. I don’t support, but there’s no stopping it; it will happen. I just don’t want these civil unions recognized as marriage. I think marriage is religious and should be left to religious institutions. I’m not saying that we should eliminate all marriages except Catholic marriages, I’m saying we should eliminate the word marriage from secular institutions, and only have religious institutions issue marriages. The state can issue civil unions.

JMHO.