Category: Let's talk
Maybe I just missed it, but I don't think we've talked about this yet.
What is your opinion about allowing gay people to marry?
I definitely believe in some sort of legal way for gay couples to get the rights and responsibilities of a marriage, you know, inheritance, divorce, children--all the fun stuff that goes with being a couple.
However, to me the term marriage means a decision between a man and woman to live together. Steeped in a long tradition. And the concept of two people of the same gender fitting into this mold, just doesn't seem to fit to me.
That's my opinion, (not very well thought out, steeped in bigotry, and all that).
What's your opinion?
Bob
Bob,
While marriage is steeped in tradition, like other traditions such as Halloween, or all hallows eve, traditions transform. Marriages being based solely on sex, (the biological understandings of what is man, and what is woman) to me have no bearing on what is love, and what is not. The concept of marriage has changed over the years. A marriage use to be a union between families. This union is made to benefit the two families monetarily, and in some cases to keep the blood-line going. The commitment was between the families, not the bride and groom. It was great if the bride and groom happened to love each other, but if they didn't that was ok as well. I say that because the idea of marriage has morphed into commitment between two people. This commitment is supposed to be based on the love that the two people share for each other.
To me, to put gay marriage on trial, calls into question the love the two people have for each other. Love should not count less if the two people are homosexual. The questions asked during a wedding ceremony for example, are not sex specific and can and should be performed by both parties. It should not then matter which sex performs those duties. While religious groups use text to condemn the love same sex partners have, the simple truth is that along with the condemned partners, the love is also condemned.
In my view, should same sex couples be allowed to marry is the second question. Without defining what constitutes love, we will never be able to answer the question of gay marriage. My reasoning for this statement is that in order for some people to be married by some religious groups, classes must first be taken to ensure a healthy and long lasting relationship. This too, in my view is calling into question the love that two people share for each other. Love is not simply defined and so these trials are held. Of course not in a court room, but heterosexual people have been turned away by religious persons who believed that for one reason or another love was not adequate, or did not meet with the teachings of the particular religion. Without a clear understanding of love and what it is, the question of whether gay couples should be allowed to marry cannot be answered. It is hard enough to answer the question of whether or not opposite sex couples should be wed.
I apply the same judgement to this that I apply to any other dicission like this: would they being married hurt anyone by their dicision? Hm... it might offend someone's sensabilities, but if so those people need to remember that they are only individuals, and do not have the right to impose their will on others, so long as harm is not being caused to another.
On another point: I can see a minister refusing to perform the ceremony. That is his or her right. However, the courts are bound by the constitution (at least in the US), to have a separation of church and state. They aren't supposed to bring in religious enterpretations of religion into it. Marriage has meant many things throughout history. I don't see why it being between 2 men or 2 women should factor into it. (Actually that just mademe wonder: in cultures where polligamy is the norm, how much goes on between the multiple wives or husbands? Hmm. Interesting. I think I have a research project to add to my pile of things too read about someday.)
SOS, that's an interesting idea for research. I'd like to see your results.
Bob
I actually think questioning people's love for one another, with regards to a lifelong relationship, is not wrong in itself.
There are so many kids of love, I bet you all the couples getting divorced now (and yes, the process obviously failed), most of the people who broke up, really thought at various times that they'd be together forever. It does not necessarily make their temporary love any less but it could still not be mature enough or lasting enough or tested enough to be deemed sufficient for a lifelong commitment. Of course even taht is a bit silly seeing as the divorce rate is pretty high. It really makes one wonder if arranged marriages are that much worse in the long term, choosing a partner based on logic, what fits for you etc, not based on the passionate first night or the first kiss or the romantic vacation they met on.
Of course this is way outside of the first question.
I don't see why gay people can't get married by the state or at least into an equivalent arrangements, if it makes them happy that's great in my opinion. I don't know enough about Christianity to say if the tradition should be cahnged or there is any religious basis for a change, that appears to be the learned argument of scholars on both sides of the divide.
cheers
-B
I believe that there should be some legal way for any two people (gay or otherwise) to enter into a committed relationship without the religious marriage vows and yet have the same legal obligations and protections the state provides to married couples. If people (straight or gay) want to go into premarital or precommitment counseling, that should always be an option. However, just because someone is gay doesn't mean that his or her love for someone is less than heterosexual love.
yess, I do believe that there should be some legally recognized way for commited couples to become "married" and that that legal "marriage" has all of the responsibilities and obligations as a traditional marriage.
in england, we have civil partnerships for gay couples now. i'm all for ppl expressing their love for each other publically as in civil partnerships/marriage.
Bobby, as my Da says that's your opinion, but it doesn't mean you have to marinate it in ignorance.
It's grand and I can't believe the crap here judging your fellow human beings.Feck! who made you judge and jury on anyone.
I'm bisexual and I'm delighted it's deadly the more gay marriages the better.
Stevie
Goblin, or Speedy, whatever your name is, I have several reactions to your
gelogenic, fustian post.
Thank you. We're all refreshed and challenged by your unique point of view, and
hope to find some day that you've been circurated.
Any connections between your reality and mine is purely coincidental.
Your post sounds like English, but I can't understand a damn word you're saying.
It seems that you are either admitting to, or bragging about your epicine
characteristics. Either way, I'm either glad to hear it, or sorry about that.
I like you. You remind me of myself when I was young and stupid.
And finally, The fact that no one understands you doesn't mean you're an artist,
rather, it usually means you are just a fopdoodle.
Bob
"There's nothing I like less than bad arguments for a view that I hold dear." - Daniel Dennett
Stevie man I was baptised Stevie.
Look at your man he's plagerising from the little book of insults, don't you have any of your own? Sure I didn't lick mine from a kerbstone.
Singer I wasn't giving out on your opinion
And Bob it's just because no one
understands you doesn't mean your an artist.
Are you not confident enough for criticism
it's a sad man that can't handle that all right.
Stevie
If two people are happy together they should be allowed to get maried and have the same rights as anyone else.
But about gay people having children i think it might be a bit confusing for the child. Who is the child going to call mam and who is going to be dad? And if a child is going to live with two men or two women he might think that this is the normal way of living. I mean i am not saying that gay people are not normal but a child should know that the natural way of living is with an oposit sex person so two people can have children. And the child might ask why my parents are different? And things like that. How can the parents explain these things? It would be interesting to read how gay couples who adopted children deal with situations like that.
Don't get me wrong i don't have anything against gay people i am just interested to how they cope with difficulties.
I love the idea of a civil partnership. Keep it separate from the churches; they will have their own opinions.
There were two gobby lesbians on the Jeremy Kyle show this morning, and they proved that gay marriage is good or bad. The advantage of them being married to each other is that nobody who isn't so gobby will have to endure their gobbyness, but if they both quarrel, due to their lack of intelligence, their marriage probably wouldn't last that long.
Every one has a different opinion with regards to this topic. I think we should let them do what they want. I know it's against other people's beliefs, but thats what makes them happy, and besides, those people are going to be the one who deals with everyone not the people who are always against gay marriage. Most people that criticize gay marriage can only do so far as to be negative about it, but when it's time to do something about it, the only thing they do is complain and be too judgemental about those types of people. I'm just saying, they are people too, so if they want to marry the same sex let them do what they want. Besies, it's their life not those that criticize it.
On the other hand, we should also consider different points of view if you don't agree with something try to be civil about it.
Respect for every one's choice because thats the choice they chose to make.
since I am a lesbian I am all for us being able to marry.
Well to be honest, it doesn't bother me whether homosexuals marry each other or not. It's not going to have any impact on my life, and if I believed it was wrong, I'd apply my beliefs to my own life, rather than the lives of others. I would however like to say that if anybody tried to tell me who I could and couldn't marry, I'd tell them to fuck off. Those decisions are only made by me and who ever I consider marrying.
I hate to be the cynical voice here, since there's a lot of great stuff being said about the equality of love, and everyone's basic human right to butt the hell out, etc, but I don't think this question is about love, or the right to love, so much as it's about legality. Married couples have tax benefits, power of attorney in the event of death or medical emergency, and all the other recognitions and priviledges that heterosexual married couples take for granted. Whatever you may think of the marriage institution, and to be honest I'm still not sure what I think of it, how can there really be a question of it being available to gay and straight couples alike?
My mother Anne and her partner Joan just got married this August, after being together for 18 years. As happy as it was for them, it was also one of the happiest days of my life. Mom said I had this huge smile on my face, so big that I probably couldn't get through the door. I've never seen two people who deserve or who love each other more. In New Jersey, they call it a civil union, but I consider it a marriage and feel that the word should be used. That said, whatever they choose to call it, I'm glad it exists and support it wholeheartedly. If they didn't get legally joined, Mom couldn't've gone to see Joanie when she was in surgery, and that's a very scarey thought. On a more personal level, it was always a dream of mine to see my parents get married, and I just kept praying that it would happen someday.
Good for you.
That's a good story, thanks for sharing it with us.
Maybe some day everyone will have your maturity when it comes to gay unions.
Bob
Having gay and lesbian family and friends, my very unbiased opinion is that it shouldn't even be a question. We are in the 21st century, and particularly in the US, where everyone is "free," people do as they please. As far as government goes, there are far more important things to worry about than gay marriage.
I’ve read all these posts, and now I’m probably going to get in trouble, but here’s what I think anyway. A lot of posters wrote that people should be allowed to do what they want if it’s not hurting anyone; I don’t know that I can defend that argument.
If you follow that argument to its conclusion, then we should condone marriage between a person and anyone or anything else. Should an adult be allowed to marry a child? Should an adult be allowed to marry a goat? You laugh and say that’s ridiculous, a child or an animal, but if you are setting standards, then your own argument doesn’t hold up. I’m not comparing homosexuality to these things either, so don’t accuse me of doing so. These examples though are, or have been, done in some cultures though.
Whether we like it or not, we all have our personal values, and have to decide then what they are based on. I find it interesting that those with a more liberal view of life are among the first to condemn those that disagree with them, calling them “closed minded.” I come from a Christian perspective, which will cause some who read this to automatically discount what I say, but that goes back to my previous statement. I make no claims of living a perfect life, so don’t accuse me of assuming a holier-than-thou attitude, I’m just telling you where my values are based.
The thing is, we do need values, and to be able to make value based judgments, or there would be anarchy. In the U.S. at least, our whole system has a Judeo-Christian foundation. As far as the constitution goes, it doesn’t say there is a separation of church and state, it says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” This simply means congress can’t make a national religion, or stop people from practicing their own.
Now, getting back to the gay marriage issue, I agree with something someone I was talking to said. Marriage seems to fall under a religious category, while civil union is under a governmental category. I don’t know of any main stream religions that support gay marriage. If the marriages are legalized by government, it would in essence be telling people how they can or can’t worship. The government already has some control over religious activities as is. It’s illegal, for instance, for a pastor or priest, to give any sort of political endorsement, or the non-profit status of the church is in jeopardy. Adding to this seems to be taking even more away from the first amendment.
I’ve tried to make a coherent argument here, but it’s tough to be concise on such a touchy topic. To sum it up, I’m against gay marriage, but since there are civil unions that provide the same benefits, I don’t know why there is still a problem. If gays are fighting for the right to use the word marriage, I think they should ask themselves why. Is it for acceptance? If so, forcing a belief on others is the same thing they accuse non-gay marriage supporters of doing.
I'm all for gay marriage.
I believe gay couples should be able to get maried and get all the rights within that union.
Something I'm curious about... I've heard it said often how marage is very intertwined with religion.
If this is so, why should a non-religious heterosexual couple be aloud to be maried? Maybe heterosexual couples that are not religious should have civil unions.
I don't know, does that make sense?
Marage equals a heterosexual religious tradition. So, if you don't fall into that catigory, then civil unions for you along with the limited rights that gives you.
There's my curiosity. *smile*
To post 25 I don't believe there should be any "marriage" rights given by the government. Two people either gay or streight should be able to go down to the court house, fill out paperwork, and be given the rights now reserved for married couples. If that same couple wishes to conduct a sarimony attended by people that is an option they can have but that saramony will have no legal significants. If that saramony is conducted in a church then so be it, if it's conducted under a tree in a park that is equally acceptible since there is nothing legal or government sanctioned about it.
all it matters that people love each other for who they are as people. if they are gay, lesbian bi or what have you they all have feelings... people are not so use to have 2 men or 2 women getting married so its like a new thing that is getting people wondering why is it happening..
Hmmm, The Roman Battle Mask I like that idea. Keep the legal side and saramony separate?
Marage, in my oppinion is between a man and a woman. If two persons wish to be partners, that's all well and good, but a marage is, and should be an experience of faith, and bonding. Now, let me put another twist to this topic? Should two gay/lesbians be able to adopt/have kids?
Just my oppinion
Yes, I think lesbians and gay people should be able to adopt kids. I tink they can make just as good parents as straight people. Isn't there a girl on here who's mother is with another woman?
Jess, are you saying that a union between two people of the same sex is not an experience of bonding? I can see how you might take issue with the faith thing, as many faiths are avidly against same-sex marriage, but it is as much of a bonding experience as a heterosexual marriage.
Becky
I believe as far as marriage goes same sex couples should definitely be allowed to marry and as far as kids goes you have some homosexual couples and heterosexual couples alike that shouldn't be allowed to have children
To be perfectly honest, I've two good friends who've decided to enter in to a lesbian partnership. They have six kids between them, and i've seen how it has effected these children. i'm not saying that all gay couples who have kids have these problems, but I think it can, and may cause a certain amount of confusion
post to 32 do you know any one lesbians who have children? how many lesbians do you know? to be honest if they want to have a child is up to them... just because you dont think so... plus do any of you guys know any lesbian or lesbian who have children?
Of course there will be confusion, but if the parents explain everything to the children and help them to adjust, things will be fine.
I think Gay marriage is perfectly fine as long as they don't get married just for the benefits and are truly in love. I have no problem with gay people as long as they don't try to force their lifestyle on others.
While I am disgusted with homosexuality itself, and not the people involved in it, I do think that gay marriage should be allowed in all states. In a way, not allowing homosexuals to wed seems like discrimination to me. But then again, there are groups, shelters, and such for specific sexes. I still think it should be allowed. In some states, it's legal, but in others, it's not. And if you get married in one state and move to another, your marriage doesn't exist and isn't acknowledged in that state you've moved to. I don't think that's fair, but that's how it is.
do you know anyone there post 37? do you know anyone who is?
Do I know anyone who is what? Gay? Gay and married?
No to both. I don't know anyone that's gay and married, nor do I know any gay people. I know of some gay people, but I do not know them personally.
Wow. Missed alot here so responding to each at once.
To Glenja:
There is a huge difference between the union of two concenting, mentally competent adults and an adult and an animal or child. There is also a difference between gay marriage and civil unions and it goes far beyond religion. I'm talking about legal ones, things that would effect everyone involved, not the least of whom are the people in the relationship. Also, consider this. Heterosexual couples can get married by a mayor or other civil officials having nothing to do with religion. Yet these unions are still called marriages. And since when did something have to be approved by a mainstream religion?
to The Roman Battle Mask:
Never in my life did I think I'd see the day when I'd agree with you but you made a very valid point here. I mean, what's wrong with going to a court or other place and having papers filled out? That way, you can choose to have a ceremony etc and satisfy both the monotheistic churches and those seeking rights.
To Teardrop:
If marriage is supposed to be religious, what happens when two atheists get married? Consider the fact that they love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together. They'd have a different experience than two people who share a religion or who have separate ones but does that make it invalid? As for adoption by gays or lesbians what's wrong with that. So long as the child is loved and well cared for, what does it matter who takes care of him/her?
To Bella Cullen:
Yes, I'm that girl. And please, before anyone says anything regarding my own tastes let me make it clear that these are entirely my own. They do not, in any way, shape or form reflect the beliefs of my parents nor are they encouraged. Likewise, I was never encouraged to be gay and have felt no such tendancies.
To Beth:
Very good point there. some people, regardless of sexual orientation, should never be parents.
To Teardrop:
Okay, I see your point here causeI feel the same way about interracial couples.I'm not saying they shouldn't marry, but it could lead to confusion, especially if the children are visibly different from everyone else. Still, in both cases, I think there's something to be said for love and patience and I second Inu-princess2006. Communication is always key, especially if the children were used to a heterosexual couple. I'm not saying they'll throw a party and be thrilled but it may help them to understand things better.
To Digressive Distortion:
I really respect you for that. You have your own views on homosexuality and clearly, they're very strong. Yet you see the need for fairness and an end to discrimination. My hat's off to you. If more people felt like you, perhaps things would change for the better.
There are societies, Mexico for one, where the civil ceremony or paperwork is done completely and totally outside the marriage union ceremony. It's so separated that a friend of mine marrying a catholic Mexican "couldn't do anything about it" (his words) according to her parents' religion until the religious affair had taken place. So there it is, live and in color, the complete and total separation of powers ... and I still stand by my first claim; I never opted to be heterosexual, so how could I claim others are opting to be gay? Frankly it never crossed my mind to ... switch, would it be? ...
But I definitely would not like living in an environment hostile to heterosexuals or heterosexual unions.
Not that this is ever likely to be, since we hetersoexuals are the majority, but am putting myself, at least to some mild extent, into the other folks' shoes.
Yeah, I never understood this choosing to be gay bullshit. Are there people who do it for attention or to be cool? Sure, but they're few and far between. That's almost as stupid as saying that we chose to be blind, though I actually know a group of people who'd like to be...
When it comes to something more permanent like sexuality, disability, or physical stature, you don't choose, but some people can sure act.
I'm a Baptist. Well that's the church I attend. After what I'm going to say they probably will disfellowship me. Oh well....
In this day of commitment phobic men and women, no matter what sexuality they have, if someone loves enough to stand up in front of their friends and pledge life long fidelity, then bring on the music, flowers, grilled chicken, and sickeningly sweet cake. I'll be at the ceremony!!!
it really depends on the person if they want to be gay bi, what have you.... there are many people who dont know anyone who is gay, bi or what have you and are not use to it and its all new to people...
Okay, but not being used to something is very different from condemning it. You could ask questions or be confused but once the hatred starts the line has been drawn, especially if it's from one who doesn't know much.
I don't know someone or understand them is not an excuse for hate. Everyone should be treated with respect and courtesy until they forego that right with their actions.
I think that's the problem. People are afraid to break with "tradtion". It's like we're raised believing a certain way, but we don't grow up to think for ourselves. For example. My parents believe in God, so I automatically believe in God. Then when I get older, to question God & his existence, oh no, that's a sin! A crime! Now, lucky for me, my parents personally, aren't like that, but there are of course people who are. The other thing is, it's sometimes easier to just agree then to disagree & try to break the mold or rock the boat as it were.
For me personally though, I'm all about breaking traditions & molds. & I don't just want to rock the boat, I want to shake that sucker up & flip it over like we're in the ocean, & even watch a few people drown.
So for me, Gay Marriage should be legalized in all states & everywhere in the world.
It's like with anything else. If you don't like it, you don't have to watch it, discuss it, be around it. You always have the option of turning off your TV, not attending a wedding, or walking out of a room.
I agree with Jared. While It's not for me it's what some people choose, and the way the divorce rate is I think that would make allot more sense in general. Good call Jared. :)
very well said post 48 i dont think i could have said it any other way.... its sad because people like the whole adam and eve thing where men and only women are allowed to get married and people hate changes.
"I don't just want to rock the boat, I want to shake that sucker up & flip it over..."
Wow Michelle, can I use that quote? lol. That is great.
I'm also all for gay marriage. I think Prop 8 and all other such legislation should be not just scrapped but run through a paper shredder and then tossed on a great big bondfire. And if the religions have a problem with it then each individual church can decide whether they will or won't perform ceremonies for gay folks. I remember reading that after Craposition 8 passed Melissa Etheridge decided not to pay her California state taxes. My reaction was more power to her. As far as I'm concerned denying gays the right to marry would be absolutely no different than if they decided to try to ban blind folks from marrying because they were blind.
Amen to ILoveS33! lol! You said it perfectly. Gay marriage? I'm all for it! Though I am not gay myself, there's nothing wrong with it, as long as the couple in question is getting married for the right reasons.
On a side note, those of you who like to stick with tradition wouldn't aprove of my pending plans. It breaks just about every moral there is, with the exception that we're a heterosexual couple. I can almost guarantee we're not going to get a whole lot of support, yet it's perfectly legal. ILoveS33, that's why I like your post so much. Keep up the good work!
In Canada, it's also perfectly legal for same-sex couples to get married.
Ooooh what a great topic! In Maine we are going to b voting on this law this week. We have the law now, but people want to repeal it, and it's driving me insaine. If people of the same sex want to get married, then let them. This is coming from a proud believing bi sexual woman. The thing that is driving me crazy about this is that when the advertisements come on for the yes or no part of this, people are trying to say that gay marrage will be taught in schools, and that's not the case at all.
I thin that no matter who u love, u should have all rights to do what u want.
I hope I didn't upset anyone, but this is just my oppinion.
Jess
I totally agree. And just because some authors are now writing stories in which there are gay couples getting married or being "life partners." Hell, anybody who's read Mercedes Lackey, or at least the original Herralds of Valdemar trilogy will know that there are gay couples who are for all intents and purposes married. And those were written at least twenty years ago. But to say that it's going to be taught in school is down right riddiculous. I heard that on a Dr. Phil show a few months back. Let's just say I did a lot of yelling at the TV anytime a gay marriage opponent had their bit to say. As far as I'm concerned their objections make absolutely no sense. It's not like it would harm anyone to allow gays to marry. And as for kids growing up in such families, who cares as long as they're loved and treated well?
Thanks to all our supporters. this is a great topic and glad to see so many people who are not homosexual have such n awesome outlook on this.
I'm a straight Christian male, but I still find the idea of passing a law preventing two people from doing what they want behind closed doors unacceptable. I understand the moral and biblical arguments against homosexuality and I won't pretend that the idea of two men getting it on is nothing less than absolutely revolting, but I simply can't bring myself to support a law preventing a segment of the population from doing something private because it goes against "my" morals.
Think about it. It's really quite simple.
Brice
Well that's the thing. At least you're willing to be open-minded about it. I mean I've always viewed marriage as between a man and a woman, but that's only because I didn't grow up in a gay family. And my family, while not necessarily supporters, would I'm sure support any of the three of us, my brother, sister or I, if we came out as gay or lesbian. And if I was gay I sure as hell wouldn't stand back and let some court pass a law telling me I couldn't marry the man I loved. As I said before, as far as I'm concerned banning gay marriage, let alone for the reasons people seem to want to ban it, would be absolutely no different than it would be if they decided to try banning blind people from marrying or having children simply because they're blind. Some blind people are already targeted for the latter by fanatical social workers as Geek Woman could tell you. But when I heard about the passing of Prop 8 I felt they ought to change the national anthom to say the land of the free...well as long as you're straight. And I realize I'm likely to get a ribbing for that last part but to be frank I don't care. It's hardly surprising we have as many problems as we do in this country because we're so busy arguing over issues like this when we've got much more important things on the plate in front of us.
I don't just want to rock the boat, I want to shake that sucker up & flip it over like we're in the ocean, & even watch a few people drown.
wow, can i use that as my new personal message!!
that is awsome and i totally agree!!
I don't see any problem with it...
Since I am a lesbian, I am all for allowing lesbian and gay people to marry. And as for gay people having kids, I think they should be able to as long as the children are loved and cared for.
I couldn't agree more. Sexual orientation is no excuse for discriminating about anything and definitely not marriage or having and raising kids.
Yeah, exactly. :)
Warning, some will find my opinions objectionable: I am all for gay adults living with whoever they want, having a circle of friends, not being discriminated against in employment or housing. However, I don't support same sex marriage. Sure some couples don't want kids, and to tell you the truth I don't have a problem with gays/lesbians adopting kids who might otherwise be difficult to place, like Rosie O'Donnell's biracial adopted children, but I think it's wrong to teach kids that either a man or a woman is totally unneeded in their childrens' development. A homosexual union is different than a heterosexual one, and I personally believe parenting by anonymous invitro fertilization is evil, not even giving a child the chance to know who his or her father is, much less be involved with him.
And I don't think Glenja's observations are that off base. I have heard of less developed parts of the world where one young man married his 85 year old grandmother (?!), and another was forced to marry a dog for his predecessor's sin of having killed one. This isn't what I want to see marriage become. And although I don't practice any religion, there is one form of marriage that most monotheistic religions don't object to that I object to BIG TIME: marriage between first cousins. Even a website that is a proponent of first cousin marriage noted a 4-6% rate of birth defects born to kids of these unions compared with 2-3% rate of birth defects in children born to unrelated individuals. Smoky bear, you're in the U K, right? I know an article from an Islamic website circulated to my e-mail about a 10% incidence of Pakistani children born in first cousin marriages making up the population of British paediatric wards, while south Asians as a whole make up only 3% of the UK's total population. One couple had a child who requires portable oxygen to breathe. They were advised, as this defect has more of a chance to circulate in such a union, not to have any more kids. The *&^(^'s had another child once husband returned from a wedding in Pakistan, and the second child had this same defect. I will attend my lesbian friends' wedding in gay marriage legal Massachusetts before I attend a wedding between first cousins.
While I see marriage between a man and his dog, or a man and a child as wrong, I don't think two consenting adults of whatever sex marrying is wrong. With the dog or the child, there's no chance for equal reasoning and consent. If two adult men or two adult women want to get married though, they are of legal age, both assumed to be capable of logical reasoning. And yes, there are 70 year olds who have a teenage mentality, I do realize, but how would we do a case by case basis on anything so large as this?
Yeah, I think two consenting adults getting married is a lot different than an adult marrying a child or a dog. Lol Anthony, you're right about how some 70 year olds have a teenage mentality.
Spongebob, if you don't have a problem with gays or lezbians living together and being together, how is allowing them to marry so different? Some way or another, the children will find a way to have at least one supportive person of the opposite gender to their parents as their close friend, if nothing else.
I really don't know how I feel about this topic. On one hand, gay people are people to and should have the same rights as all of us. On the other hand...I don't know, it takes getting used to. I was invited to a gay wedding of friends of mine and it was...odd. Sure, I am glad they found each other and all but I must admit that I am not fully sold on the concept. I guess it's fine but just not in my backyard, as they say.
It doesn't have to be your thing. I just think people who prefer it should have that right. I'm straight myself, but I'm all for gay marriage.
I totally agree. And as far as I'm concerned not allowing gays the right to marry because they're gay is discrimination, regardless of the reason for that denial. In my mind it's no different than it would have been if they'd ever tried to deny blind folks the right to get married because of being blind. And who knows? Maybe there are even some countries that do do this, although admittedly I wouldn't be able to name any of them offhand or tell you if there even are any. But because Craposition eight was funded by a good many religious organizations as far as I'm concerned it didn't actually pass regardless of the votes and things. It's probably lucky I'm not likely to ever try to get into politics or I'd try lobbying some serious legislation to deny straight couples the right to get married until the day when same sex couples in all parts of the country are allowed to get married if they want to and without having to take crap from opponents. They have their rights to believe what they want but not to discriminate. But needless to say I wouldn't be a popular politician.
Love the last post. it is such a shame that people want to steal peoples happiness. I also though I love women am not sure I am ok with bringing a child in to the world without him or her knowing there father if they ever wanted too. so will be adopting if I ever have kids.
I definitely think they should know who their father is and have the option of associating with him if they should want to and if doing so wouldn't be unsafe for them. But no more of this bullshit about denying gays their rights, least of all for religious reasons since this isn't entirely a religious matter.
right on to the last post; I agree completely.
spongebob: You've brought up several points that I wish to address. You say that you don't think it's good when someone is brought up to believe that either a man or a woman is unneeded in their development and that anonymous invitro fertilisation is evil. Yet you agree with adoption. Why is this acceptible to you, when it could just as easily be that the child will never know his/her biological parents? What if, whether biological or not, the parent bringing up the child is single? Whether heterosexual or not, the child will still be missing a parent. If a child is supposed to have two parents, wouldn't it be better for him/her to grow up with homosexual ones rather than just one? Personally, I never felt the need to know my father and was satisfied with my two moms. I knew my biological mother, an once I realised how evil she was, I wanted nothing to do with her. My brother actually found our father and we communicated, but, though he wasn't a horrible man, it didn't really work out. You also say that you don't want marriage to become like the examples stated. But, as I said in post 40, there's a huge difference between incest and marrying a dog versus marrying a person of the same gender from a different family. In the cases you mentioned, these were not only bizarre an unacceptible in most Western societies, but also both were instances wherein the union was forced. No one is forcing homosexuals to marry one another. I do agree with you about first cousins for the sake of children and inbreeding. That said, they can just as easily have children if they're not married. Perhaps, they can be advised/forced to use some form of birth control if they choose to marry each other. What about those rare instances where people were adopted and married or had sex with a family member and didn't know it until it was too late? What happens if they truly fall in love? I'm not condoning it, just food for thought. I'm also totally against underage marriages and agree that the union needs to be between two conscenting, mentally competent adults. But back to homosexuals. What should be done in the case where one partner has to go for an opperation or has something terrible happen to him/her and is in the hospital and the other partner wants to visit. As it stands, many places only allow "family" into see their patients. If there's no marriage laws to protect this right, what is the healthy partner supposed to do? OceanDream: I agree with you about the other supportive person. If the child truly needs/desires someone of the opposite gender as their parents, they can always find him/her somewhere and gain guidence that way.
Oh if we're talking about kids I say they shouldn't and let me explain why:
Kids need a mother and a father, period. Not 2 mothers, not 2 fathers. Why? It's hard enough for kids to grow up with 2 straight parents. It's simply unnatural in my view. Now, I am certainly not against gay people in any way because...well, people are people. Are we not taught about biology and such? The child will never be the gay person's flesh and blood if everyone goes to adoption agencies, sperm banks, and labs.
Just my opinion.
I must confess I don't know how I feel on the gay marriage thing, we obviously need something to accommodate their legal rights, as they already have religious or other non-civil ceremonies for it.
And I don't know how to put this delicately: I have a lesbian friend with a daughter, she's married in San Francisco, and they're fine.
However, I don't think at all I could have raised my daughter without a woman's influence, and I don't think my wife could have done the opposite. I know: we all heard in the 1970s that it was all nurture and not nature, but I watched her grow up and do things girly. Not saying all girls do, of course and will probably get flamed by the old guard femmies for this, but we made it a point to expose her to as much as possible of different things, be it toys or games or whatever. She's always been sorta that way.
But back to the parenting issue, I think it would be tough for two men or two women to come to the same conclusions as a man and a woman. There's a time I'd have never said any of this. But I've been watching my daughter grow up for fifteen years now and it seems every time I turn around all that stuff they said in the 70s has turned out, in her case and ours anyway, to be kinda a crock.
And we may be a straight couple but not all that stereotypical in many ways. I guess where I'm at now is I am left with more questions than answers.
Well, I think I had a nice balance. There's Mom, the girly type, the teacher and the discipliniarian, and then there's Joanie, the tomboyish type, the fun-loving one who let me scrape my knees and climb the monkey bars. Both are clearly women, having no feelings of transgenderism. It's just that one is more feminine than the other. The mere idea of Joanie in a dress or skirt and Mom in high-tops and sports clothing or a suit and tie makes me laugh. I personally was never into girly stuff, but it's not like Mom didn't try. I remember, before college, when she'd do my hair, which was long at the time. I hated it and always wanted it to be over, even though everyone complimented me on it. Anyway, I'm 26 and can't say that I'm any worse off than anyone else for having lesbian parents. I have a different relationship with each of them and each has given me something special and unique. There are experiences that I've shared with one that I could never share with the other. I'm closer with Mom but everyone has their favourite parent if they have two of them. The important thing is, no mater how much we may fight and complain, we know that we all love one another an are always there for each other in times of need.
I'm not for gay marriage, or homosexual adoptions. I'd like to echo Robozork's oppinions. While I don't think gays would make bad parents per se, I do agree that children should have a father and a mother. 2 moms or dads just isn't the same, no matter how masculine or feminine they may be. I'm also against in vitro births, single parents by choice, and cohabitation before marriage. I am a strict Christian, and believe while people's attitudes may change, faiths don't. I'm not for mistreatment of gays, I have friends who are gay, and they're great people. BTW, nobody has ever convinced me that being gay isn't a choice, or rather, that people are born gay. Now, I'll respect others' oppinions, and feel free to disagree, but that's where I stand on the matter.
Do you honestly think that people who get beaten, who lose their families, their jobs, their homes, who question who they are, who kill themselves because they can't live with the stress, who choose to come out inspite of everything and live with the consequences, who give up so-called normality to be persecuted by others actually choose to be gay? How many masicists do you think there are in the world? It's not like they can turn the gay light bulb on and off at their whim. That would be like me saying "okay, tomorrow, I want to be sighted."
Well said Tiffanitsa. And as far as I'm concerned denying gays the right to marry, regardless of the reason, is mistreatment. It's denying them their rights in a country that supposedly offers every one of its citizens equal rights. Over the years I've come to see that as a crock, and not just with regard to gay people. But I was serious when I said that if I ever got into politics I'd be seriously tempted to make it illegal for straight people to marry until such time as it was legal for gay people to marry everywhere in the country. Fortunately I'm not remotely interested in getting into that rat race. But I've never seen evidence that being raised by gay parents was harmful to a child's development.
Tiffanitsa, I couldn't have said it better myself. I was raised mostly by my single mother, and I'm doing just fine today, thank you very much. My father was in my life, mind you, but since my parents divorced when I was three, my mom made most of the decisions about how my sister and I were raised, and when I was twelve, I made the decision not to see my father, except to go shopping, or out to dinner for a couple of hours. My point here is that while I definitely think it is good for children to have both a mother and father, it's really not fair to say that gays can't marry because of that. Besides, like I mentioned earlier, children are going to come across someone from the opposite gender of their parents that they will most likely be close to, whether that would be family, or just a friend.
Tiffanitsa I wondered about that, though couldn't have rightly put it into words as you so did.
I have heard the deal on homosexuality as a choice, but one thing they have never answered for me is this: If being gay is a choice, then when did I choose to become heterosexual? As far as I know, I was either asexual a child (if children are aseqxual) or liked girls secretly or openly. When watching Gilligan's Island at Age 9 I had a secret crush on Ginger and not Gilligan if you take my drift. In fact same-sex attraction or feelings that way is beyond the scope of my comprehension. I've had it said to me by a gay friend that that's how it is for them, except of course it's heterosexual relations that are beyond their ability to understand.
If it were truly deviant, wouldn't it be somehow tempting? I mean how many of us as young kids stole now and again, maybe blew up jack-o-lanterns on Halloween, got older and smoked some grass or did other things, all of which took what they now call a 'point of decision,' I think the term is. And for all those of us who did, those who didn't (if you're honest) were at least tempted for some of it. However, I never chose not to be gay, I was never tempted. The gay-is-a-choice folk have that to explain to the rest of us. That's not a political or religious issue, it's requiring a reasoned response. If being gay is a choice, is not being heterosexual a choice? And when? And if not, why not? And what about the devience issue? You've a lot of youngsters willing to take wild risks to have a roaring good time, who have never even considered 'going gay' if that's the word, it's no more attractive to them than sprouting a set of webbed limbs. I hope one of you all who believe that can explain this, and no I'm not being hostile, it's a reasonable question.
Beautiful post! I'm curious too, and like you, not in a hostile way. I'm attracted to men and couldn't imagine myself with a woman. That said, I know that their are teens and even older adults who experiment with same sex relationships. Some of them truly love it while others decide that it's not for them. But there are people who've always known that they were gay, for as long as they can remember, just as you and I always knew ourselves to be straight. I suppose the only ones who really get to make a choice are bisexuals. Since they're attracted to both sexes, they can choose the life style that suits them best i.e. if they wish to seem traditional and blend in with the crowd or if they wish to explore their attraction to the same sex.
like OceanDream, I was primarily raised by my mom; my dad was rarely in my life. in saying that, my mom was abusive (verbally as well as physically till I decided to move out at the age of 21). at 22 years of age, I'll be the first to tell anyone that I'm better off without either of my parents. so, to those of you who think it's best for children to have heterosexual parents, what about someone with a background like OceanDream or myself? do you still hold to that truth?
as far as gay marriage goes, I'm all for it. as someone who's an out and proud bisexual, it's something I'm very passionate about. I've struggled with my sexuality, and got a lot of shit for it when I was younger...but I've always known in my heart that I'm mostly attracted to women. it's difficult to deal with people's reactions sometimes, but I'm a strong young woman and will deal with whatever I'm dealt the best that I can.
My mom was the one who raised me, since my father abandoned us when I was about 5 years old. He was very abusive, beating Mom, sometimes to the point of hospitalization. It was a relief to all of us when he left. Now, some people say that I'm attracted to other guys because I was raised by a single Mom. Others say I made a choice. If it's all a matter of choice, let's take a food that we absolutely hate. For me, it's raw tomatos. Now, I'm gonna make a conscious choice, "Tomorrow, I will absolutely love tomatos." Maybe I think that this will make me more popular, fit in to society a bit better or whatever. Sure, I can force myself to eat them like they're going out of style, but does that make me love them? This is much the same thing that happens when a gay guy conforms to society, getting married to a woman, having a family, as a good man should. In the end, all he's really done is lived a lie. He's lied to himself, and his wife. He's cheated himself out of being free to find a guy that he truly loves and being with him, since he has a commitment to her, and really, to society, if wee're viewing it in this light. Yeah, pretty smart choice. He chooses not to be gay, but he can't squash the desire. This is much the same way that the religious freaks choose to settle down and be good christians, denying themselves the freedom to do the things that they want to do. This in turn makes them miserable, so they figure that, since they have to give it up, so should you. But man! When these people fall, they fall hard, and it's their own fault for walking the tightrope, no? Why on earth should such denial be encouraged? I'll never understand it.
Anthony you and others have verbalized points many of us have thought about hor years: yes, a heterosexual set of parents can't really be deemed better for their heterosexuality. I don't believe gay parents are better parents either: you simply have good and bad parents. If we straights / breeders want to show ourselves to be superior somehow, perhaps show rather than tell is the way to do it as is the case with most things. How many fellow breeders have adopted? After all if the gays ought not adopt as some say, then we breeds should have finished the job and there ought be no unwanted offspring running around. After all we are the majority of the population, or the population wouldn't have populated. I'm not pointing fingers as I have not adopted either, have one daughter and do what I can to give her a good start. But still, if one were to bank on said system to the exclusion of another, that must mean that individual would adopt, and we breeders would be the ones with all the solid relationships, low divorce rates, low domestic abuse ratios and the like. Until we are, though, if we go about denying others, we only look silly.
That's my attitude as a blind software engineer. Someone sighted says "I don't think you can develop this interface because you're blind," I'm not an activist but a sportsman so it's Game Time. Frequently in those situations they lose because their whole basis of denial is based on their own incompetence. That and they tend not to be very good sports.
So by us making up illogical leaps about one group gaining access erodes another's, perhaps there's no gay or straight agenda, perhaps we breeds gotta show a little sportsmanship: Game on, the gays said, we're losing. In countries like New Zealand and elsewhere where they have legalized gay marriage, in terms of divorce rates / custody problems / domestic violence, the queers have us breeds knocked, only maybe they're too delicate to say so.
So maybe we breeds are being like that sighted engineer: not a biology or political / hr issue, just the lack of sportsmanship.
Yeah. Nor would that set of heterosexual parents be able to help it if their child grew up to be homosexual or even bi. So I don't believe that crap about being gay being a conscious choice. So as far as I'm concerned we have no right to deny them their right to marry or, even if they don't want that, to adopt kids.
Veering off topic a little: I am TOTALLY AGAINST IVF. I think certain genetic combinations aren't meant to be made, and all sorts of problems result when they are. I do believe there is a psychological component to infertility, some folks know on a deep down level they either don't want a child, or at least not at that particular time, or maybe it isn't even safe. Anyone remember Sheila Bellush, in Sarasota? Her abusive ex husband was chasing her all over Florida and Texas. She remarried a man she met on an airline flight. The couple (this lady was a mom by psycho ex) was unable to have any children naturally, so went for IVF and quadruplets resulted. Now if my violent ex was chasing me in two different states, more kids would be the last thing on my mind. Maybe they would be in danger, too. Psycho ex paid a man to break and enter this lady's home, and he slit her throat in front of her toddler quadruplets. Second husband is a widower with quads. Now who profited from this except the IVF clinic?
I am totally against this science, and had I not been able to have a child naturally, would NOT have sought it out. When a single individual or gay couple adopts especially a hard to place child, they are considering someone besides themselves. Hey, this is a child, maybe older or biracial or with a handicap a lot of straight couples won't even look at, I, or we, want to take a chance on loving, nurturing, and disciplining that child to adulthood. When gays, or straight singles, use IVF and surrogacy to become parents, they are considering themselves and what they want, IMO, more than the well being of that child. I, or we, want a BABY, we can have BABIES like married straights, I want one of my OWN. God, I hate that phrase, my SIL comes from a culture where people claim to be so traditional and family oriented, yet in that country there are many orphans, and few prospective parents express any interest in adoption, they just want one of their OWWWNNN. Gag me...Anyways, I think adoption where the child may not know his father vs anonymous IVF are two totally different paths, and at least someone adopting a child is thinking more about the well being of a child who most likely isn't a baby, whereas singles and gays using IVF or surrogacy are thinking more about what they want, a k a a "baby of their own", the transmission of their own genes.
Also with same sex marriage are we really equipped to handle same sex divorce? I have a cousin whose experiences as a judge in family court in Georgia convinced him never to marry, and I'm sure his court docket was full on any given day. Do we have enough judges to handle this new type of divorce? Anyway, I'm all for gays living with whomever they want, willing their property/assets to whomever they want when they leave the earth, having an equal opportunity to rent, own property, do jobs they can legitimately do, not be harrassed or worse because of who they are, even adopting kids should they desire, but marriage and parenting thru medical intervention are a bit too progressive for me.
I'm all for adoption precisely because there are so many unwanted children in the world. But what's wrong with wanting to have your own child? I'm sure straight parents who choose to have their own children want the same thing as homosexuals, i.e. to pass on their blood and genes. I know a friend who knows to lesbians. These women have a very close male friend and one of them had sex with him in order to have a child. All were in agreement about this. There was no relationship here, he just wanted to help his friends realise their dreams. Would you consider this the same as artificial fertilisation or no? Just curious.
I wouldn't do IVF, but I don't think it should be outlawed for those who want to, for the same reason same-sex marriage shouldn't. And, how is same-sex divorce so different from a hetersexual one? The only thing that might be harder is that they can't specifically call one spouce the mother of any children, and the other one the father. Other than that, I see no difference. The marriage between two consenting people didn't work out, and they go through legal proceedings to end their marriage, and divide property, and make living and visitation arrangements for any children.
Those who say gay is a chosen lifestyle have been conspicuously silent on the questions I posed in Post 82, as they usually are.
As I said I am not being hostile, just asking how you worked this out, I'll repost in summation what said questions are. They aren't questions for gay people or their sympathizers, they are for those who say being gay is a choice:
1. At what point did you or I become heterosexual by choice? Is it not logical to assert that if one is gay by choice, that one is hetero by choice?
2. If it is merely deviant behavior, how do you explain the total non-attraction to it by a majority of the population? How do you explain the fact the masses are not tempted to it as can be said of theft, violence or any number of other deviant behaviors expressed to a greater or lesser degree?
3. Deterioration: Now, square up, stand tall for this one, no tomfoolery with talking points about pedophiles and 57 chevys here:
How is a gay couple marrying going to erode the institution I have been a participant in for seventeen years? I understand how, if I were to take my own vows thoughtlessly and run off leaving the wife to fend for herself / the daughter, I'm doing damage not only to them, but to said institution. However, how is a gay couple marrying eroding said institution?
The Gay-is-a-choice people have never answered these questions, which are not talking points or political sound bites, but reasoned questions to logical gaps in their equation if we can call it that.
I think the reason many of us heteros / breeders / straights or whatever one wants to call us are so attracted to the idea that gays are born that way, is because to us, we appear to have been born straight.
Being born straight, or I assume I was born straight, I do not understand their attraction, and for sure being at a gay wedding would feel off-color. However, that is my feeling, and all civilized people learn to control / not act upon their feelings. Otherwise we could never live with one another without tribal fights all the time.
So my challenge to the Gay-is-a-choice croud: Man up (or woman up?) and answer the above. They are reasonable questions, after all. Many of us spend a good portion of our working lives defending one position / method or another, not by politics / activism or belief, but simply with the use of data. Data is a winner, at least in my book. I only asked because I want to know, so start 'splainin'.
Even if it is a conscious choice, why should that matter? Isn't this supposed to be a free country? Doesn't that mean we are free to make whatever choices we want, so long as they do not cause harm to others, or to the environment?
I am not saying it matters or it doesn't, see question 3 the alleged deterioration.
What can be asserted that if it is not a choice, if it is biology, then we are not relegated to "Yes we can," and "No you can't," schoolyard nonsense. If it is biology, and to some of us at least, it appears like biology, then dealing with it is the same as dealing with racial, disability or gender issues.
Which means in a modern and (more importantly) civilized society, they enjoy all the rights, and take on all the responsibilities, of the rest of us. I want to see their explanations. And if not, why they are conspicuously silent. This isn't the college campus or schoolyard protester drama, one should be able to answer if they support that position. Logical data-based explanations are always a good thing.
I agree. I've noticed the conspicuous silence from the Gay is a Choice crowd. It's been my experience in situations or debates like this that when a certain sect, for lack of a better term, doesn'tanswer questions put to them it generally means they're unsure of their answer. I usually don't when I'm in that position. Maybe being gay is a choice for some people but I certainly don't believe it's so for all of them. It might not even be true period. I don't know. But even if being gay is a choice that doesn't change the fact that gay couples should have the same right to marry that heterosexuals have. It's like I said before. We are not and will never truly be the land of the free until every citizen is able to make is or her own choice of how he or she wants to live his or her own life with no fear of having that right taken away by a few people who just happen to have a lot of political or religious clout. I mean yes they should have to take the consequences of their actions, particularly if a behavior causes harm to other people or the environment, but as far as I'm concerned same sex marriage does not fall under that heading and I fail to see how such a marriage detracts from the sacredness or whatever of a straight one. I might feel a bit off if I attended a gay wedding but some of my best friends are gay and lesbian and I feel they should have the right to marry should they ever want to and should they ever find that special someone.
gay people should have all the rights of marriage that straights do, but just like athiests why get married in a church by a minister..what's the point. marriage is between a man and a woman under god. simple as that. you can't play with the word marriage cuz a marriage will always be between a man and a woman just like a snake will always be a snake, it won't turn into a bird...but gay people should recieve all the rites otherwise and should be allowed to adopt as well. they can make just as good parents as straight so i don't know what the big deal is about adoption.
Apparently now there are gay churches / gay ministers at least based on what I've seen on the web. Hence they want to combine their already-existing religious ceremonies which they already conduct, with the civil connection instituted by the state.
But come now, gay-as-a-choice croud, these questions ought to be very simple for you. Many of us provide far more in-depth and complex solutions to problems for people on a daily basis, so come now, just those few questions is all that's asked.
One would think they would be simple questions but apparently not. As for the gay minisers I didn't know about that but it does make sense. Obviously the powers that be aren't too offended by homosexuality or they wouldn't allow gay folks to become priests. So denying gays the right to marry especially on religious grounds makes even less sense to me than it did before.
1. At what point did you or I become heterosexual by choice? Is it not logical to assert that if one is gay by choice, that one is hetero by choice?
hetros don't chose anything, they just are.
homosexuals don't chose, we just are the same as hetros. although, i know some people do chose, for what ever reason... i say it's natural, but got bashed on another board not on this site for saying that.. but it's just as natural as being straight, it is just how one is... just saying.
There are also examples of homosexuality within the animal kingdom. If we choose, then they must choose, which means that people need to give animals far more credit for being intelligent than they do now...
Hmm Darkwing you're speaking as a gay, and what you say makes sense, not only to gays but to us breeds about ourselves: we simply are.
Yet to hear from the peanut gallery, though.
Darkwing, I totally agree with you.
I'm not saying I agree that it is a choice, but what does it matter if it is or isn't? Should we ban rap music just because certain people think it sends a bad message? Well, shouldn't that be a personal matter of choice?
Anyway, my point is, even if it is a choice, that doesn't make it wrong.
The last two posts may be right, if in fact it is a choice. However, if it is not, as many of us may see it as not a choice, we're not talking about what one has the right to do by choice: we're talking about restrictions placed on people because of biological factors, which to me is sincerely dark.
Biological factors? How do those come into play. Last time I checked, it wasn't manditory to have children. Other than that, what other biological factors are there?
You missed my entire point completely. By biological factors, I meant being heterosexual or gay is biological, hence to discriminate on that basis equals the same as race or disability. Hence my call for the other side to simply 'splain and answer the few questions I put forth. I think you're reacting rather than having followed this. We're actually in the same camp but oh well such is political stuff, proof of the nonsense of it.
Um, holy cow, just wow. Oh well. I don't think anyone's gonna come forth and back up their crap. One straight guy told me that it was my choice, and I asked him, "If it's a choice, then will you choose to be gay for a few minutes?? His reply? "I probably could, but who in their right mind would want to?" I don't think he ever realize just how well he proved my point. I simply thanked him for his time and wished him a pleasant rest of the day.
haha He really put his foot in it! Man oh man I would've have fun exploiting that.
Well said. LOL. And I just heard this morning that the case against Craposition eight in Cali is in its final I'm not holding my breath but even if the judge continues to rule against same sex couples they'll just have to keep fighting for their rights. It's the only way they're going to get the rights they deserve. It's as I said before. We are not and will never truly be the land of the free until every citizen of this country has equal rights. And denying gays the right to marry is denying a certain population of our citizens equal rights. As far as I'm concerned it's no different than it would be if they'd ever tried to deny blind people the right to marry based on blindness. Some blind folks are already targeted by overzealous social workers for having kids.
I would be so pissed off if I couldn't get married just because I was blind, and I'm sure the rest of us would be, too.
Anthony, next time someone tells me being gay is a choice, I'll do what you did and see what happens LOL.
I doubt the being-gay-is-a-choice people will answer those questions. We'll see ....
Excellent point last poster, and that's just it, what blind person would be insane enough to deny gays the rights us blinks have just recently gotten.
Amazing how some will want their own rights but deny them to others. While Prop 8 issues and similar ones are technically about the rights of gay people the underlying principles are and have always been the same, whether it's interracial marriages, blacks in uniform, blind or other disabled people in various parts of society, women gaining the right to own property let alone vote, and the list goes on.
Robozork, I misunderstood your point. I appologize for that.
I think people who are against gay marriage should think about what it'd be like for them if they couldn't get married, whether it be because of blindness or race or anything else that makes them differet from other people.
hmm, my best friend said she chose to be gay, and, i guess there are people that can chose it due to cercomstances, or problems with the opposite sex, but for me, i say we just are... not trying to argue something, just something i forgot to put in my last post...
That just means tiath being gay can SOMETIMES, that being the key word, be a choice for some. But I don't believe that's the case most of the time. So as far as I'm concerned we have no right to deny them any right that we don't also deny ourselves. So before we start denying gays the right to marry we'd better stop doing it ourselves.
Loved post 48 by ILoveS33!
Also, excellent posts by roman battle mask, robozork, and BryanP22!
Also it is wonderful to see that some may not personally agree with homosexuality but however do recognize the need for legal fairness in marriage equality.
Well thankyou. Thankyouverymuch. LOL. But it's as I've said before. Denying gay couples the right to get married and have children the way straight ones can is no different in my mind than it would be if they'd ever tried to deny blind folks the same rights. Maybe they do in other countries but I've never heard of it hapening here, even if some overzealous social workers do target blind parents. But as I said the two examples are no different since each is denying a particular right based on something which is more often than not completely out of the person's control and, more to the point, does no harm to others.
Well, here's one that did exist for us. It used to be that parents of blind children were encouraged to send their children to blind schools as opposed to mainstreaming. If you go even farther back, I'm not even sure if they were allowed in mainstream. It was also assumed that the blind couldn't hold "normal" jobs and so they were given only a few choices. This is still an issue, though the jobs have now changed to telemarketer, switchboard operator, teacher lawyer and massage therapist. And now, there's a new discrimination towards the blind by the blind for those wishing to enter the old trades. How strange life is.
People discriminate based on what's convenient for the bulk of them at the time. That would explain the change in who gets discriminated against.
I don't think it's a choice exactly but I do think we could compare this to controling one's appitite. You don't really need to rip into a steak every day do you? I'm not trying to be bitter, or a hard ass, or whatever, but it's a thought. They "gay mechanism" is there but you don't have to flip the switch. Of course, I'm not gay so what the hell do I know?
well, to me, that's just a bit unfair. There are sex addicts, both straight and gay, just as their are food addicts. You're straight, so you like women, so let's say that since there's always a bit of a fear of unwanted pregnancies and STDs, you shouldn't have sex with women. Just don't ever flip that swich and all will be well.
I do know what you're getting at, but it's not quite the same thing.
we all have to eat to survive, no questions asked, so in and of itself, eating is not a choice, only what we eat and how much of it we eat is the choice. By your own questions, I as a gay guy, have two options left.
I can either be alone for the rest of my life, never finding a partner or even getting some gradifying sex from someone that I find attractive, or finding a partner of the opposite sex and maybe marrying her and raising a family, just so I can better fit in to societies little box. I'm sorry, but that's just totally not right. And yes, there are definitely straight sex addicts who overindulge in sex, just as their are gay sex addicts. So, by your question, should I assume that it's ok for the straight people to overindulge, but not for the gays? I don't mean to sound harsh, and I'm not exactly offended, but I'm a bit amazed, I'll admit.
Hugs to you devilish Anthony. Excellent post and points.
Thanks. The view in Margorp's post was almost depressing.
But anthony, with the eating analogy that is what I meant. We can control the portions. And back to the sex thing, we have lots of people who have flipped that switch.
Aside from taking safety precautions to avoid diseases and possibly pregnancy, and considering relationships i.e. no cheating, why should anyone of legal age deny themselves sexual pleasure? Sure, if you're so absorbed in it that you forget to do other things, that's bad. But that's true for everything. I could never understand those who choose not to enjoy the good things in life.
If it's so easy to flip that switch then, prove it by flipping it. Don't be sexually active, spen the rest of your life either sexless or having sex with someone that you're not attracted to. Hey, if you can advise it on others, you can live out your own advice, no? Flip your sex switch off and lets see what a happy life you lead.
Tif, I agree 100% but we all know of cellibits. These people hold off--or at least claim to do so--for many reasons. *click of a switch* chug'g'g'g'g'g'g'g'g'g'g'g'g'g
Isn't that where a lot of those priests get found out in the end as being child molesters? I'm glad at least, that you did say, "Claims to do so." I certainly would never dream of telling a straight guy that he shouldn't indulge in sex, so is it really all that unreasonable to request the same respect? Probably, but oh well...
I was thinking the same thing but didn't want to go pointing fingers. Of course, not everyone who becomes a priest or choose not to have sex is a child molester. That said, I think that it certainly promotes undesirable behaviour. If they can't be allowed to have sex with anyone on the outside, then they should at least have special women who take care of them and only them.
I do agree with that absolutely. And yes, what I am suggesting is certainly unreasonable but that doesn't mean it isn't possible.
So, does this mean that either gays and lesbians should never have sex, or if they do, they need to limit it, to say, once a month, to keep it in healthy moderation? Let's impose this same restriction on the straight folk as well and see how it goes over. Looking forward to it. It should really cut down on disease, unwanted pregnancies and the likes all the way round. Wow, this might just work after all. As far as having a steak every day, if I have the money to pay for it, then why the hell not? I'm only hurting myself, right? Well, unless you're one of those animal rights activists,. Then it can be argued that I'm causing innocent animals to be killed to satisfy my hunger. Finding a partner and having a satisfying relationship is just not the same as a drug addict who might very well kill in order to get the next fix. Two consenting men or women behind closed doors is not hurting anyone, so I think there are a lot more important things to worry about, but that's probably just my unpopular opinion. The more I hear, the more I laugh about this being a free country. It's only free when people do exactly as society dictates. Proud to be an American, yeah!
I agree with Devilish Anthony a hundred percent. It's as I've stated earlier in this topic. We are not, and nor will we ever truly be the land of the free until EVERY ONE OF ITS CITIZENS can live by and practice his or her own belief systems without fear of persecution, at least so long as they do no harm to others. Gay couples getting married or raising children isn't harmful as far as I'm concerned. But that's just one example of where I feel we're losing more and more of our rights every day.
It is not my place to say when and where a person has sex. If they flip that switch I talked about, fine, they flipped it. I am not saying they should, I am just pointing out that it can be done.
But gay people can't always choose to be gay. That's the point we're all trying to make. Probably not even most of them. So there's absolutely no reason why they should be denied the right not only to marry but to call it a marriage. Nor should they be denied the right to adopt and raise children once they get married or even if they don't.
People can do whatever they want as far as I am concerned. I can only state my opinion.
Fair enough. I wish the government shared the same views.
I don't think it's so much about flipping a switch though as it is about simply never giving in to one's desired. I see this in people who get religious all the time. They set themselves up with totally unrealistic goals, try to mold themselves in to something they're not, and when they fall, they fall ree'ee'ee'eel hard. As far as having a particular desire, no, I don't think you can flip a switch and your desire will just magically go away. Some people probably believe they can, but look at what usually happens with that.
Well I've never flipped any such switch so I guess I am not one to talk but I do still believe it is possible. Ah but live and let live I always say.
Does that mean that if you wanted to, you could be gay for a while? It's just a switch. Sure, you're entitled to your opinion, and that's cool. I'm just saying that there was never a choice for me. I never decided what turned me on or off. It's just how it was. so I, speak from experience.
I don't know. I have a hard time with the whole flipping of the switch idea. I mean, you can change your desires on the outside, but when it all comes down to it, it's just a mask, and you'll never be truly happy with anything but your own, true desires.
I can understand if the switch is to do or not to do, but I can't understand the switch being to be or not to be. So, the big question. If all my sexual fantasies are about men, but I never ever act on those fantasies, does that mean I'm not actually gay?
Anthony, no you didn't have a choice about beeing gay. The switch idea is simply stating how one can have some level of control. I am not sure why you would want to control it if that is who you are but I truely believe it could be done. As far as me flipping a switch to be gay...I don't know, I've never tried and I personally don't want to do so because I like who I am.
Well those against it can be happy that Hawaii governor Lingle just vetoed a civil unions bill - saying it resembled marriage too much just by a different name. Which is crap as civil unions do not provide the same rights and benefits of marriage.
Well I have no control over it eether way, so I guess live and let live as I say.
Damn! I thought Hawaii was actually good about that stuff! Guess not.
Actually, I pictured them as laid back about those issues but obviously they aren't.
Damn, a civil union isn't the same as marriage.
As many times as everyone tries to explain that to these people (not the ones here I mean in general) that's as many times as they refuse to accept and to understand that. perhaps, one could ask them if they were in a situation like that would they still call it a marriage or say that it's the same thing? And if not, then what makes it different whether it's a man and a woman or a homosexual couple? If they've already agreed that it's not the same thing, how could they suddenly change their minds?
It's been my experience that if you ask people like that these questions you won't often get a straight answer. I had an experience like that on an unrelated issue. A few years ago one of only two blind people that I personally know here in Twin Falls went to guide dog school. She'd gone on about wanting a guide dog, then got really excited when she was accepted. They paired her up with Donetia, a black Lab. Well less than two weeks later I got a call from Marie. She was home and she didn't have the dog. Her words were that it "wasn't what I expected." I need hardly say that when I asked her what she did expect I didn't get a straight answer. I believe the same to be potentially true of folks opposed to any kind of same sex relationships, much less marriages.
I'm interested in hearing further. Do you mean that they're not sure of what they're saying or what to expect or that the results could be very different from what they expect once they're involved in it in some way?
Well all of it really. And a lot of them don't necessarily like to admit that there could be another side to the story if they put themselves into the other side's shoes.
This is how I feel about the subject:
It's abnormal, I don't like it, but do what you want.
Well that's the point right there. At least you're willing to let them live as they want. And it can't be too abnormal given how many people have chosen to live that life.
I guess so.
I'll absolutely respect those who say they don't like it, but not to get in the way of those who do. I just really can't abide those who say it's wrong, end of story.
Same here. If you don't like it that's totally fine by me and I can respect your feelings. But trying to force them on others is wrong, just as it would be wrong for homosexuals to go to the home of someone who was respectful but who didn't want to see them displaying feelings toward one another and have a make-out fest. It works both ways. I'm a smoker and if I know that someone is offended by it, I won't smoke around them. That doesn't mean I'll stop but if they're polite about it, I'll do it somewhere else.
That's the point. As far as I'm concerned Caposition 8 should never have passed since it was funded by religious organizations who aren't willing to live and let live. And according to the constitution the church and the state are supposed to stay out of each other's business. The way I see it is we need to legalize gay arriage but leave it up to each individual church or whatever to decide whether they'll provide that kind of service. That way those who are more open-minded can perform same sex marriage ceremonies and those who feel it's wrong don't have to. But I in no way support either Craposition 8 or the Federal Marriage Amendment, either of which as far as I'm concerned take away one of the fundamental rights of those who live in this country.
The way I see it a person can do what they want as long as they aren't harming others.
That's the way I see it as well.
as do I.
And I do get sick of the battling back and forth. If you're gay, fine, if you're straight, congradulations, now leave each other alone.
And stop telling gays they can't get married because they're gay. That's bullshit.
So the straights get congratulated, while gays are grudginly excepted. Thanks.
No get congradulated on both sides. I knew I'd get called on that one.
I'm really beginning to wonder if pissing people off is actually your only real goal. Hopefully not.
It's probably lucky I'm not likely to ever go into politics. If I did I would introduce a bill that would make it illegal for straight couples to marry so long as it remained illegal for gays to marry anywhere in the country. Of course that would mean I probably would not be a popular politician LOL. Just one reason why it's lucky I have no political spirations. Too much drama and burocratic nonsense.
I'd vote for you. *smile*
I didn't mean to piss you off. I've been just giving my views on the issue. Okay, I used a poor choice of words. Sue me.
Na, that's ok. I didn't say you pissed me off. I simply expressed my own thought process. You said you knew you'd get called on how you said it, yet you let it stand until you actually did get called on it, so...
I love post 156 Bryan.
As it is now, no church has to marry a couple that they feel does not meet it's requirements... I think a lot of religious people misunderstand and think that if gay marriage is allowed that churches will be forced to perform same-sex weddings and that simply is not true.
That being said there are plenty of churches that approve of marriage equality - and those churches should be able to marry same-sex couples.
Many people misunderstand how the matter of marriage works as it can be confusing. Many people believe that the wedding in a church or ceremony performed by a religious clergy, is marriage.
However, a wedding ceremony in a church, that alone does not make a marriage, legally-speaking and thus does not provide any of the legal rights, responsibilities and protections of marriage. It is simply a religious recognition of the union - often called a wedding. The wedding ceremony in the church is not marriage but instead is a religious celebration and blessing of a couple making a lifetime commitment. If a couple just has a ceremony in a church with a religious figure but does not file the paperwork with the county, then they are only married in the eyes of the church. It has no legal standing. the rest of the world would not consider the couple "maried," Legally-speaking.
Before a marriage becomes legally recognized a civil marriage license must be applied and paid for at a county office. This must be done prior to the date of the wedding or ceremony.
The marriage technically occurs after the wedding ceremony (even if at the courthouse or at a park or on the beach for examples) when both parties have signed the marriage license, the officiant has signed, 2 witnesses have signed, and it has been properly filed with the county. The license is then processed and several weeks later, the couple receives by mail, a marriage certificate issued by the state. It is this marriage document from the state that provides all of the legal benefits of what is known as civil marriage.
This is very interesting. Why, then, can a religious figure say "by the power invested in me by the state of..."? What is that power, if he/she isn't the one actually marrying the couple and why can't it be said in states that don't allow civil unions or marriages between homosexuals? What if it's a marriage performed at city hall? Would the mayor actually be the one to marry the couple or would that just be a secular ceremony with the actual legal marriage being again in the paper work? The second seems the most logical but I want to make sure. I also believe that a name change isn't automatic and must be handled separately from the marriage. I could be wrong here but that's what I've heard.
I'm not sure about that. But it just gives the religious folks who are against gay marriage less real leverage since they're not the ones who actually marry the couple. It's as Icequeen said, the religious ceremony is just to seek the blessing of the church and whatnot. But as far as I'm concerned we have a very simple solution. We make same sex marriage legal all over the country and those churches who are willing to perform such ceremonies can do so and those who are closed-minded enough to not be willing to perform such ceremonies don't have to, although when I first heard about the passing of Craposition 8 I was more inclined to penalize any church who didn't grant the union once it was legal all over the country. But now I say let the opponents have their little tantrums as long as they leave the more open-minded of us alone and let us live how we want. What with all the hate in this world I think God or whatever higher power you choose to believe in is glad of every little bit of love we show to one another, whether it's heterosexual or homosexual.
Completely agreed. Beautifully said. This sollution could please everyone, from the conservative to the liberal. I just wish it could be written into law.
They say "by the power invested in me by the state..." because they have been legally granted, by the state, the ability to perform ceremonies and be the clergy who signs the marriage license at the end of the ceremony. If it is say the mayor, or the justice of the peace at the courthouse performing the ceremony they also say that. Each state has different requirements on who can be authorized clergy to sign the marriage license.
When the marriage license and certificate is received by mail some weeks later, the spouse wishing to change his/her name can then use it as proof to change their name. This may work differently in the case of civil unions because those certificates are often not acceptable name change documents.
Well no, my solution probably wouldn't please everyone since in the eyes of a lot of those conservatives we're "aiding and abetting sin" or some other such nonsense, even though we wouldn't be forcing them to perform the ceremonies. I'm not a huge fan of him but I watched two episodes of the Dr. Phil show that focused on this very subject and you should have heard how heated the discussions became. I did a fair amount of yelling at the TV that day I can assure you...
I actually heard a conversation, on one of those talk shows, between a conservative and a liberal on this subject. Surprisingly, they were actually civil to each other, stayed on topic, and used The Bible back and forth to prove their arguments and to disprove those of their opponent, which was the point of the debate. Naturally, the liberal totally beat the pants off the conservative but I've gotta at least give him credit for being decent about it.
I wish it was actually that simple to straighten out this mess. But even if we made allowances in the law that would make exception for those religious fundamentalists who didn't support gay marriage I don't think they'd be satisfied. Plenty of people feel that the protesters are "going against the will of the people" by protesting laws like Craposition 8.
No law will ever satisfy everyone. That's just human nature. Someone will find some reason to complain about it.
We as people need to stop forcing our will on others.
As long as those who see themselves as the norm believe they are right and believe they own the world, they will impose their will on others. I'm straight, and although I do not understand what it's like to be gay, it just doesn't bother me. I'm still quite puzzled as to what the real threat is to straight people if homosexuals can legally marry, I mean, the real threat as opposed to the theoretical one. I also don't understand the point or purpose in denying homosexuals as well as others certain rights. Do people think they are punishing others and if only such folk would see and understand the error of their ways and change into what is deemed normal, then they get their rights? There is so much about human behavior I just do not understand.
I couldn't agree more. I see no real threat to "normal" marriages by allowing homosexuals to marry. I've been tempted to write to the folks on ProtectMarriage.com and point that out to them but I seriously doubt they'd listen. And you can damn well bet that if I ever have kids and one of them comes out as gay or Lesbian I'll be active in campaigning for their right to marry the person they love. I'd like to sit a few of these religious fundamentalists who seem to be most violently opposed to this down and have them put themselves in a gay person's shoes and see if they'd feel the same about it then. That's what I meant a while back when I said you can never seem to get a straight answer out of folks like that when the time comes for htem to picture the other side of the coin, what they themselves would do in that situation. I seriously doubt they'd sit back and allow others to tell them who they could and could not marry. That's probably why gay men who have married straight women haven't necessarily been truly happy since while you certainly might be able to supress the feelings it's in no way changing who and what you really are. So the analogy about flipping a switch doesn't hold water as far as I'm concerned since that would imply "turning off" your homosexuality when all you would really be doing is suppressing it and probably feeling out of place in your own life by doing so.
Suppressing one's feelings, particularly something so natural as whom you love, is very dangerous and unhealthy. The only time I'd ever take exception to that is when the person being loved is underage and when the person doing the suppressing is an adult. But if we're talking two consenting, mentally competent adults, then fighting the feelings of attraction can only lead to heartbreak and self-punishment.
They say they're trying to decrease the number of divorces each year, but not allowing people to marry those they really love is sure not going to help that.
Ok? Divorce is a part of life anymore. Hate to say it but it's true. And denying homosexuals the right to marry isn't going to change that in the slightest. So we can add yet another argument that doesn't hold water to the ever-growing list of stupidities that make up most people's reasons for why they feel gay folks shouldn't be allowed to marry. And as for te religious folks who go on and on about it, I feel and always will that god, the gods or whomever or whatever you worship is more concerned these days with the fact that there are people who still love each other than with the fact that some of them love other men or other women. We should be concentrating on much bigger, more important issues and leave the homosexuals alone to live their lives however they choose so long as they do no harm to others. And as far as I'm concerned letting them marry does no harm to others.
Part of the problem is perspective. Religious folks and others seem to always site the divorce rate as a sure sign of everything falling apart and the influence of whatever their sworn enemy is this week. This perspective implies there was some grand time in the past when everything was entirely better, everyone was much more moral, and there was little to no divorce. I think this time only exists in the land of wishes and dreams of people who can't accept how things are, bad as well as good.
One of the reasons why there were fewer divorces in the past is that people were indoctrinated to believe that you're supposed to stay with your partner no matter what happened, including abuse, alcoholism, drug use, cheating or even just falling out of love with the person. Today, people have more options. Do I think that divorce should be used at the slightest provocation? Absolutely not, an I do think that it's used far too often in cases where counseling or even thinking things through might have saved the marriage. But it's a part of life, as you say, and rather than blaming whatever party, I think it's important to try and help couples get to the root of their problems so that, maybe, they can work together to solve them, providing they don't involve violence or verbal abuse..
lets put aside religiousviews for one second. lets look at gay marriage from an economical view. marriage licenses cost money. by allowing gay marriages. every state, and even the federal goverment would add to their respective treasuries. now, of course. its not just the paying to marry.its, like lee iacoca explained it. throw a pebble into a lake. observe the ripple. one adds another which in turn adds another and so forth and so on and so on. allowing gay and lesbians to marry legaley and acknowledge it would tap into a source of disposable monies. imagine, how much divorce attorneys make? imagine how much a divorce cost? a wedding? a family of lets just say four. on the average spends more money than two single ppl. the arguement against gay marriage is a simple one. its against the bible and what it teaches. the sober truth is, with the economy the way it is. gay marriages would only serve to put several parts of the american fabric back to work. of course this is not the solution to our crappy economy. but, some money is better than no money. and, even god prommisses some financial reward if we follow his teachings. so, lets tax gay marriage, make money and call it a day.
lol I like how you think. I must say that was a totally new spin on the issue.
Interesting. I didn't think of it that way, but you're right.
When bringing up divorce, I wasn't really thinking about whether it's ethical or not. I'm just saying that if people are already limited to whom they can marry, (aside from the usual limitations; minors, family, ETC.), it really isn't going to help the divorce rate decrease like the government seems to want to do.
well, if the goverment wants to "decrease" the divorce rate do the following. charge an obnoxiouse amount of money to marry. i mean, something riduciulosly extream. then lets see who can afford to marry? people would more than likely go at a snails pace to the altar. food for thought.
Personally I think everyone has the right to the benifits of marriage, however I don't think religions should ever be forced to give gay people marriages if they don't believe it fits with their religious definition of marriage.
However I certainly think that they should be allowed registry marriages and all the benifits that go with it. that's what they do in Switzerland.
though I'm not quite sure how I feel about same sex couples adopting.
the problem I have with it is that it's a hard life for some children who have same sex parents, when they have friends around etc.
secondly, because children need ballanced examples in their lives, and to me that means a mother and a father.
Other children need to learn that even though it may seem weird to have two female parents, or two male parents, it might not be weird to everyone. Of course, I want kids to be able to make friends, but I wouldn't want them to have to feel ashamed of who they are, and who their family is. If the kids want to be a true friend, they should be willing to put those differences aside.
right on to the last poster.
yeah, that's true, but you try and tell that to a young kid, young kids don't think like that, and in a way, you can't really expect them too, because it's not a perfect world, yet.
in a perfect world, noone would have to worry about this, but it's just not accepted enough as normal for children not to tease.
children tease the out of the ordinary a lot of the time.
I think gays should be allowed to marry or do whatever they want. They're not hurting anyone else so leave them alone and if they want to get married it's noone else's business. Honestly, we should all stop judging each other!
Children will find a way to tease, no matter what. I got teased for being blind. My sister got teased for having ADHD. My friend got teased for having a so-called "weird sounding" voice. They grow out of it eventually. Or at least, most of them do, and those who don't will find themselves with few friends later in life.
I never said anything about forcing religious organizations to perform gay marriage ceremonies, although admittedly when I heard about the passing of Craposition 8 I was briefly of that frame of mind. The way I see it is we need to legalize gay marriage but leave it up to each invidual churhc, regardless of its religious affiliation, to decide whether they will or will not perform and recognize gay marriages. That way those who are more open-minded can marry the folks who come to them for that while those who aren't can stay behind in the dust if they so choose. But in no way should we be telling gays that they can't marry and using our Constitution to take away that right. And mark my words people, if the Federal Marriage Amendment were ever to pass, that would be exactly what we would be doing, regardless of what some might have you believe. That's what Craposition 8 is as far as I'm concerned, even though it only applies to California. The Federal Marriage Amendment would effectively make it totally illegal for gays to marry anywhere in the country regardless of each state's individual laws. As for kids and whatnot, kids find things to tease one another for regardless, so really, a kid with gay or lesbian parents isn't much different from ones with straight parents since the teasers are going to find something to tease about regardless. I've had quite a few friends in the past who were raised in a gay parent household and they turned out just fine. But I said it before and I say it again now. Denying homosexuals the right to marry is absolutely no different as far as I'm concerned than it would have been if they'd tried to deny us blind folks the right to marry based on the fact that we were blind. And whether or not such a law was ever actually in effect here in the good old USA, I don't doubt that at some time in the past there were people, however many or few, who would have tried to see such a law enacted, though in their minds it would probably have been out of some bizarre belief that married life would be too hard on us.
I agree with those of you who said having two gay parents wouldn't be any different for children; people will always find things to get on your case about, and that's the point.
My cousin is growing up with two gay parents and there's absolutely nothing wrong with her. This is just one of these issues that needs to be left alone! This is just like if people tried to get a law passed that the only religion people can have is christianity. Everybody is different so honestly, i wish the world would stop trying to make everyone think, act, and feel the same as someone else! There's nothing wrong with gays getting married and raising children. The only difference between their situation and a straight person's, is that straight people marry the opposite sex nothing else! I agree with the person who said that if gay marriage becomes illegal, it would our constitusional rights! Whatever happened to America being the land of the free? Aren't we supposed to be the melting pot? I'm pretty sure our founding fathers would be pretty pissed off if they saw how we treated each other today!
If there was a single-religin law?
Tilly, that isn't a question of if, it's a question of when. The when hs been in the U.S. during the initial stages of our country's infancy, when various laws allowed the state to remove a child from parents who didn't acknowledge the trinity. Several European nations had laws of similar stance before then.
These crybaby anti-gay pathetic wimps are only repeating the cycle and putting on new colors.
I agree that if individual churches don't want to perform same sex marriages, that's up to them, but church and constitution are two very different things, and it needs to stay that way.
I agree with TIlly. I don't doubt that our founding fathers would be turning over in their grave from disgust and fury at what we've become, although I do have a friend who firmly believes that they would actually be ashamed that they never thought of some of the stuff we've done.
I truely believe we should be working towards peace. Mind you, my earlier arguments were based on biology but guess what? I am not the boss of the world. Do what you want as long as you can try to work towards coming together. That is my view, so, at the risk of beeing called some bleeding heart liberal, live on.
That's exactly what I mean. Until we can let everyone else live their lives however they see fit so long as they do no harm to others or at the least as little harm as possible we're never going to truly be at peace. And as far as I'm concerned that includes letting homosexuals marry the ones they love. Until we can do that and leave them alone to do so we're never going to have peace regardless of our own personal views on the matter. I think God, the gods or whomever or whatever you choose to believe in are far more thankful for the fact that love still exists in the world than the fact that some of it is love of a woman for another woman or a man for another man. That's why we were given free will, to make our own choices.
Right, and I may not agree with all of what is done it is not my place to try and change it.