Do you remember the ubiquitous red ribbons that became popular during the 80’s to show solidarity with those suffering with HIV/AIDS? It looks like it’s time for the red ribbons to move over because now there is a new cause cÃ©lÃ¨bre accessory that is sweeping the nationâ€”the white knot. According to WhiteKnot.org, here is what the white knot represents:
“The White Knot is the symbol for marriage equality. Wear it every day to show your support and to create conversation. Use it to tell someone today that equal rights are important to everyone. Share the White Knot and spread the word that all loving couples deserve the same legal rights, benefits, and respect that civil marriage bestows.”
There have already been numerous celebrities and public figures who have donned the White Knot to show their support for same-sex “marriage” (see pictures here). Just today, the New York Times reports that the Levi blue jean company is now featuring white knots in its store-front displays. There is even a YouTube video showing where white knots have been showing up on red carpets during the recent awards season.
This post is more of an FYI than anything else. I expect we’ll be seeing a lot more of the white knots, and I think it’s important for folks to know what they stand for.
“Stable committed, loving relationships”??? Is this the reason for gays demand for marriage is all about?
What a load of excrement! No this is about forcing society to accept homosexuality as normal, period. It is about forcing Christians who hold the institution of marriage as established by God to accept an abomination as equally acceptable before Him. Never. “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.” Is 5:20
so, is it ok to say ‘those white knots are so gay’?
Well, I guess I need to buy slip-ons because I can’t tie my white shoelaces in white knots anymore.
“â€œStable committed, loving relationshipsâ€??? Is this the reason for gays demand for marriage is all about?
What a load of excrement!”
You know what? I’ll agree with you there.
But, this, on the other hand…
“It is about forcing Christians who hold the institution of marriage as established by God to accept an abomination as equally acceptable before Him.”
Until you are actively fighting for adultery to be illegal, this is also excrement.
As far as I’m concerned, this is purely about contractual law. If you want me to switch sides on this argument, then one of two things needs to happen…
a) civil unions, coupled with a call to the GLBT community to shut up about it already (this is what annoys me about the CA situation…they have completely legal domestic partnerships which carry ALL of the legal weight of marriage).
b) laws that state that all declarations of power of atty and wills are valid and cannot be called into question by healthcare professionals or family members.
until one of those two happens (with “a” being preferable), I will continue to be a Christian — without the quotes around it — that believes that the GLBT community deserves something akin to the rights of marriage.
why is my comment awaiting moderation?
I’m gonna start wearing orange knots on my chest to show that I’m for special rights for TN Vol fans.
I don’t know why your comments were in the moderation queue. I just found them and released them. Don’t you feel so free now?!
Your comparison is inaccurate for the following reasons. 1. Homosexuality and gay marriage is not illegal and no one is suggesting that we make it illegal. There is no law that would cause a gay couple who claims to be married to be incarcerated. This is about social acceptance of the union of gay couples. 2. Adultery is the same as homosexuality in the sense of immorality; both are sins and an affront to God. However, no one (including the adulterers) is suggesting that adultery is normal and a good thing that should be accepted by society at large.
I actually agree with you on this point. I would not be opposed to civil unions where certain civil privileges are afforded to these couples.
I disagree that the â€GLBT community deservesâ€ to have a civil union. The reason is that homosexuality is an egregious sin and a moral anathema. I am mindful that this is not a theocracy and not every Biblical moral law is accepted by the majority. Therefore I am willing to accept civil union as a compromise that would allow Christians to continue to speak out against this sinful behavior. Homosexuality like all sins should be preached against and discouraged.
Marriage, that religious institution under ‘attack,’ should:
o be reserved for those who desire a religious ceremony,
o have requirements set forth by each religious organization without state interference, and
o as a religious ceremony, GO UNRECOGNIZED BY THE STATE.
A civil union should be required of any pair of adults desiring their union to be recognized by the state.
On what possible basis would you limit civil unions to any “pair”? Why not grant a civil union to any three, four, or more who might want their unions recognized by the state?