Marriage no, prostitution yes
OK, now I get the born-again line on homosexuality, thanks to Pastor Haggard:
In Colorado, Mr. Haggard was a leader in the campaign for Amendment 43, which would define marriage in the state as a union between a man and a woman. Mr. Haggard’s accuser said this was his main motivation for going public with his account of having sex with Mr. Haggard.
In a telephone interview from Denver, Mr. Jones, 49, said, “When the federal marriage amendment came up before the Senate earlier this year, I wanted to see the stance of his church, and the more I read about it, the angrier I got.”
“He’s preaching against homosexuals and yet he’s having gay sex behind people’s backs,” Mr. Jones said.
Semi-anonymous gay sex is fine, but gay marriage is an abomination. It’s a real throw-back to the Sixties, the time when Satan walked the Earth just like normal people and Free Love was fine but marriage wasn’t.
I’m cool with that.
UPDATE: Preacher boy has resigned after copping a plea to “sexual immorality”. Will he start a born-again gay church now?
- November 3rd
You’re buying a 49 year old whore?
The whore’s story is holding up better than the preacher’s, Scott. The preacher first said he only met the whore once, and that was just to get a nude massage and little crank, but the whore has tapes of several meetings being arranged. So who do you think I should believe, the preacher’s story or my lyin’ ears?
I don’t necessarily doubt the veracity of this guy, but the 49 years old part is an oddity in an otherwise unremarkable story. That’s way past the sell-by date, you’d think.
Love is blind.
How would you feel about a born-again gay church? My cynical heart says…I think it’s got legs, money-wise. You can’t deny Art’s talent for finding suckers, heh heh.
I saw Andy Sullivan and former NJ Governor Jim McGrevey on C-Span saying gay people are more spiritual than the rest of us on account of their oppression or something. I don’t know about that, but they’re always been very prominent in the Roman Catholic clergy, so maybe they have a point. If we turn the churches over to women and gays that leaves the rest of us more time to concentrate on sports and business so I guess everyone can be more happy, which is the American Way after all.
I would like to see government getting out of the marriage business altogether. I don’t want to see the income tax laws distorted for or against marriage or any other living arrangements. Of course, we could always get rid of the income tax altogether in favor of a national sales tax. A private citizen could then become truly private once again and not have to divulge all kinds of personal information about self and family and other relationships on an income tax return.
I also don’t like the idea that one’s employer should be involved in living arrangements vis a vis insurance for spouses or dependents.
And then there’s Social Security, the Sacred Cow, the Third Rail of Politics, touch it and you die. Dependent relationships figure large in that program, as well.
The government’s role should be limited to the adjudication of broken contracts or dissolution of partnerships, whatever you want to call it. Let the churches sanctify relationships if they want, but government should get the hell out.
When I got married in the Philippines, if was in front of a Justice of the Supreme Court, a relative of my wife’s family. There was a legal contract to sign, which laid out the terms of the financial partnership, powers of attorney, inheritance, et cetera. The church had nothing to do with it. All very rational, in a predominantly Catholic country, no less.