Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Email: "Two people of the same sex just don't 'fit' together"

Hot off the email: (in response to this week's column).
Hi Scott,

               No, you don't know me.  Opinions are for everyone and yours don't count any more than anyone else's.  You already know that but I expect that you think yours are better.

               The problem with homosexual so called "marriage" is that it doesn't remain a matter of free choice once it's submitted for an "official" State policy and "legal" definition. You're right that the State shouldn't define such a "marriage".  The State should not even be considering such a thing as "legality" of homosexual "marriage".  Thinking people (if there are any) probably don't object too much to what homosexuals do in their private lives but they sure don't want to be told that they have to accept or recognize that lifestyle as a normal definition of what marriage should consist of.

               To me, "homosexual" means just what it says.  It's all about two people choosing what kind of sex they'll have, although it's a mystery to me what that could be.  After all, two people of the same sex just don't "fit' together.  This is NOT about civil rights because they're still free to choose that life.  It's NOT about religious standards either.

               It IS about the universal laws of nature which require a male and female to produce offspring (children) for posterity.  Two homosexuals cannot produce a thing under the natural laws of the universe.  I wonder why some people lose sight of this FACT when deciding whether homosexuality is "right" or "wrong".  The decision shouldn't have to go beyond this one universal law.
For the record, I don't think my opinion is better. But I do think it's right.

And frankly. more letters like this will only help the cause.

Beer week? Don't mind if I do.

Take a tour of Buffalo Brewing History this Saturday June 25th - 9:30AM! Tickets available though

Seating is limited so act fast to ensure a spot on this fun and historical adventure! Click the Buffalo Brewery Tours link above to reserve tickets. $50 ea. includes the following:

Tour Details

  • June 25, 9:30AM to 4PM
  • Bus departs Ulrich’s at 9:30 AM sharp, please be parked and ready to board the bus at 9:15AM 
  • 9:30 to 11:20. Buffalo’s Awesome Brewing History Tour.  A drive around the brewhood narrated by local brewery history expert Peter Jablonski.  A tour of the old Simon Pure facility narrated by William Simon IV himself!
  • 11:30- 12:30 Lunch at Gene McCarthy’s with Craft Beer Talk by Bill MetzgerMenu = Weißwurstfrühstück.  Talk “What is Craft Beer?”
  • 1PM – 2PM. Latitude 48 Hoppy Hour at Pizza PlantJump into the craft beer present with an IPA tasting at Pizza Plant of Sam Adams new Latitude 48 Deconstructed…   a new twist on Hoppy Hour.  Special happy hour pint prices.  Special Pod promo on draft card purchases.  Draft card raffle.
  • 2:30- 3:30  Rare Belgian Tasting. Mike is going to dig around in the far corners of his vast cellar at the Blue Monk and pull out some rare 750ml bottles for our tasting pleasure -$10 for 4 4oz samples. I can’t wait!
  • 4PM.  Zum Schluss @ Ulrich’s Tavernone of our local beer geeks will talk about the difference between the beer scene now and back in the day all while enjoying a no-host pint of lager or ale with some tidbits at Ulrichs. There may e! ven be a free sneak preview of the brew prototypes coming up o! ut of Community Beer Works some fine time in 2011.

Government has no role in marriage

Some people have no respect for the sanctity of marriage. They view marriage as something to horde and keep for themselves. To them, it’s a political football to be kicked around Albany — or  Washington, D.C.

There is no logical reason that I can understand why Republicans and Democrats should have the privilege of defining marriage, any more than they should be allowed to define the words “hope,” “love” or “commitment.”

If I believed for a second that politicians understood hope, love or commitment, I may be willing to consider their ability to define marriage. But I have little faith — another word I don’t want politicians defining — that elected officials understand any of these concepts.

There are several dictionary definitions of the word “marriage.” The one I tend to give the most credence to is: “The combination of two things into a new single entity.”

In the current debate over the word marriage, the question is whether it need be a union between a man and woman, or simply a union between two people. See, the state of New York decided a long time ago that marriage is specifically a union between a man and woman. And currently, there are 31 people in the state Senate who seem to want to keep it that way.

The latest census figures say that there are more than 19 million people living in New York. Scientific data says that one in 10 people is gay. Simple math, therefore, says that there are 1.9 million homosexuals in New York who can’t marry their person of choice because of 31 people who call themselves “public servants.”

I’ve always viewed marriage as a commitment between two people — and God. Marriage is a religious institution. Not a state institution. The only reason for the state’s involvement is to oversee the financial ramifications of the marriage, and as is far-too-often the case, the eventual divorce.

The state should be nothing more than a witness to a union created by the church. But as it is right now, there are 31 people objecting to what could potentially be 10 percent of marriages. Not just objecting, mind you, but vetoing them.

In my opinion, if a happy couple can find a church to marry them, the state should not stand in the way.
Many churches won’t want to marry same-sex couples. And I don’t have a problem with their hesitation or refusal to do so. They should not be forced to. They shouldn’t be barred from it, though, either.

Some would suggest that “marriage” be reserved for couples of a man and a woman, while allowing same-sex couples to have “civil unions.” These people are engaging in semantics, essentially creating the “straights-only” drinking fountains of the 21st century.

You may wholeheartedly disagree with me. That is certainly your right. I would suggest, however, that if you don’t want gay marriage, don’t marry someone of your own sex. And leave it at that.

You don’t get to tell other people what they can eat, drink or say in their own homes. We’ve finally reached the point where most of us have concluded that you can’t tell people what they can do in their own bedrooms, either. The next logical step is that we shouldn’t tell people who they can marry in their own churches.

Hope, love, commitment and faith are not things to be hoarded.