In May of 2007, early in my blogging efforts, I posted a dissertation on the rights (or lack thereof) of homosexual couples—gays, if you will—to be married under the same rights granted to heterosexual couples—straights, if you will. The complete posting can be found here: https://thekingoftexas.wordpress.com/2009/05/07/on-the-question-of-gay-marriage-rights/. I will say, in all humility, that a trip to that posting is well worth your time and effort.
In spite of the fact that the question of marriage rights for gays is one of the most divisive discussions in our society, my original posting has garnered only one response, a comment made by a heterosexual person. I am tempted to conclude that homosexuals do not frequent WordPress, or if they do, they never search for another person’s take on the problem. Or they find a discussion, one that I unblushingly believe to be an original approach to the problem, whether humorous or helpful, and they find it neither—otherwise I should think that they would comment on the posting.
Hey, people! This is an example of thinking outside the box, a technique that was developed and published many years ago, intended to stimulate discussion and perhaps arrive at solutions to problems, regardless of their nature.
I am therefore bringing the lone comment out of the closet of comments and into the bright sunlight of its own posting. The original comment, along with my initial response, the commenter’s reply and my final response to that reply follows. My purpose is to make our give-and-take discussion available to others. I spent a considerable amount of time formulating my out of the box solution to the problem, and I expected considerably more than one comment—if I’m being unreasonable, so be it!
This is the original comment:
Yours is a long-winded and overly simplified analysis based on a faulty starting premise. Other than that, it was entertaining to read but will change no one’s opinion.
My reply:
Viewer comments to a blog posting can be approved as submitted, approved and edited, deleted or ignored. My first reaction was to delete yours, but I reconsidered and decided to approve it, unedited, because I felt that your reaction to the posting would be of interest to other viewers.
Thanks for viewing this posting, and thanks for the comment. I regret that you found my analysis long-winded and overly simplified, and I was doubly disappointed that you felt my analysis was based on a faulty starting premise. However, it pleases me that you found it entertaining—such was my intent. I placed the posting in the humor category because it was intended to be humorous, satirical and entertaining. The fact that it entertained you means that, in the opinion of at least one viewer, I achieved my objective.
Commenter’s response:
Fair enough. I seldom mock anyone’s view in a blog and I hope I did not give that impression. The issue has caused hurt in my own family as my closest cousin has tried to get me to accept that she is married to her longtime companion (who I dearly love, as well). However, as you are the King of our great state, I think it is imperative that I continue to read you.
My final reply:
Please accept my sincerest thanks for your follow-up comment, and I also tender my heartfelt thanks for your sharing an issue that has caused hurt in your family.
My wife (the Queen) and my three daughters (the three Princesses) claim that I have an opinion on virtually everything, and they think that I believe I can effectively advise others on virtually everything. They are right, of course, but I try to avoid doing either because I am skeptical of other people’s opinions and have difficulty accepting any advice they may give. I expose these faults only to let you know that the thoughts below are not my opinions and are not given as advice—they are nothing more than random thoughts prompted by your posting.
My first thought on reading your response was a phrase that can be found somewhere in the Holy Bible, the King James version (a fellow king), a passage that says, “What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder,” or something to that effect. The phrase varies in construction and purpose, but is widely used in marriage ceremonies. Many people, perhaps most, believe that it refers to the sanctity of the marriage.
An immediate afterthought was that the phrase places no restrictions on the participants in any way regarding age, race, religion, political affiliation, physical attributes such as height, weight, or fairness of face (or lack thereof), or gender.
My second thought was one of a prayer known worldwide, probably published and spoken in every language imaginable—some who read this prayer feel that it embodies the wisdom of the ages. Others consider it trite and dismiss it. I believe that each of us should at least make a stab at living by this maxim, this fundamental rule of conduct. It should be easy, because it requires only three attributes: serenity, courage and wisdom, attributes inherent in everyone.
This is the prayer:
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference. —Reinhold Niebuhr
At the risk of repeating myself I will repeat myself. These are not my opinions and are not given as advice—they are nothing more than random thoughts prompted by your posting, and should be regarded as such—unless, of course, you find them applicable in any way, and in that case you are on your own.
Good luck, and best regards.
The King of Texas 
burstmode
April 7, 2010 at 8:11 am
The earliest known reference to homosexuality (controversial among Egyptologists) occurs in an Egyptian tomb dating to about 2400BC.
The tomb is called the Tomb of the Two Brothers. It seems pretty obvious to me that these fellows were gay but they also had wives and families. I think their homosexuality was accepted BUT they were not permitted marriage to one another.
I think that even in permissive societies, as I would categorize Old Kingdom Egypt, it has remained a fundamental keystone of ALL societies that marriage remain between a man and woman.
When the bible was written, homosexuality had long been recognized and is dealt with in the bible. No where does the bible reference the marriage union as being between anyone other than a male an female.
What the current movement attempts to do is create a new class within our society. It is not a case of rights denied but rather of rights created. As we have seen with monumental government programs, the creation of human categories fractures us as a people and does little to help the created category out of whatever plight the category creation was designed to correct.
On a side note: the homosexual tomb in Egypt? It is often called the Tomb of the Two Brothers. The “brothers” were the Pharaoh’s hairdressers. Case closed.
thekingoftexas
April 9, 2010 at 5:46 am
Very well spoken—to quote a superior officer in the workplace from long ago, “You learnt me something.” I was familiar with biblical references to homosexuality, but the extent to which ancient Egyptians gamboled among the posies and tiptoed through the tulips was news. It places Liz Taylor and Richard Burton in an entirely different light. Thanks for the comment and the history lesson.
Your statement concerning “monumental government programs” is particularly interesting and insightful, and I am in complete agreement. A strong wind is blowing in our country—it’s moving from right to left, and if it doesn’t reverse direction soon, most of our traditions will be uprooted and lost, all to the detriment of our nation and the world.