Life as I Know It; Family; Lifestyle; and Healthy Living!

For some people, marriage between two people of the same sex insults their sensibilities. (and that is putting it mildly!)  It is religiously wrong, because they have some document that proves that it is wrong.  It trumps their sense of right and wrong.    All the implications that can be thought of for why this should not be, they will find it!

 

There are so many boxes that have been created in our lives.  Everything we do and all that we represent fits in those boxes.  You can't be a cirle and fit in a square box, that doesn't work.  You're going against the grain, against all that is natural, known and dare I say holy?  In essense  homosexuals do not fit the roles or the boxes that we have created in this life!  Not in our lifetime, not in our backyards!

 

Am I being immoral because I have no objections to people of the same sex marrying each other?  Some people do think that, I have no doubt about that.   Same sex marriage is not an abomination of marriage in general, or against God as some like to quote.  Same sex marriage does not make my own heterosexual marriage unimportant or less than what it is.  What matters fundamentally is the right of each individual to choose the path that is their God-given right to do.

 

Although the legal papers now says that these people have the right to marry whomever they choose, they still do not have the legal rights, all the rights that a man and a woman in a marriage do.  They won't be able to file taxes together, they won't be able to get all the benefits that a man and a woman in a marriage can from the government, if they need it, because although the law says they are allowed to marry, they are still not equal or legal in every aspects of their lives.

 

The article I have linked above, written by John Cloud, defines and clarify some of the things  the California rulings does or does not do  with the confusion to many about Gay marriage.

 

Marriage between homosexuals doesn't take away our rights as heterosexual individuals just because two men or two women seek to marry each other, but those who object gladly seek to take away what is a fundamental right of each person, their freedom!

 

 

 


Comments (Page 1)
on May 17, 2008
Doesn't bother me, they deserve to suffer just as much as the rest of us.
on May 17, 2008
Excellent article, FS.

Whenever I hear someone ranting against homosexual rights, the first question that ALWAYS pops into my mind is "Why do YOU care? It has nothing to do with you."

I doubt the anti-gay crowd will admit it, but the real reason gays get such a hard time is people's fear of things they don't understand. They use religion as a crutch to support this fear, but I see through it.

Some of the kindest and most competent people I've known in my life are gay. If people would just let them be, everything would be fine.
on May 17, 2008

I've heard people say it would destroy marriage. How exactly that could occur or even how they would even know when gays get married is never defined.

I feel it's no different than one religion saying just the fact they know other religions exist cheapens their own beliefs. 

on May 17, 2008
I am sure there are some that are against it purely on a "deviant behavior" basis, or "cause the bible tells them so". And there are others that are against it because "it has always been that way". But there are many for, against, and indifferent to it for many other reasons, very few having to do with the fact it is Adam and Steve instead of Adam and eve.

If you boil it down to the groups listed above versus the proponents, you are never going to get a fair discussion or debate, as you have asked and answered your own question. If you look at all the reasons, pro and anti, you can get a real good discussion going on the subject. And probably be surprised at some of the answers.
on May 17, 2008

I have no problem with gay marriage at all. 

on May 17, 2008

Marriage is a religious rite. I have no problems with a homosexual union, but the term marriage is saved for a man and a woman for a lifetime commitment.

on May 17, 2008

Sorry for DP. Darn auth error.

I still believe homosexuality a sin, but I'm not gonna police it if it's not called a "marriage", for a marriage is a religious rite, not a civil union.

on May 17, 2008
Marriage is a religious rite. I have no problems with a homosexual union, but the term marriage is saved for a man and a woman for a lifetime commitment.


Actually marriage is a civil legal status, pure and simple. For some the wedding itself is a religious rite, for others it's a civil ceremony. Stop being so narrow minded. Plenty of non-religious people, including atheists, get married every day.
on May 17, 2008
mar·riage Pronunciation[mar-ij] –noun
1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
on May 17, 2008
mar·riage Pronunciation[mar-ij] –noun
1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
on May 17, 2008
mar·riage Pronunciation[mar-ij] –noun
1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.


I really don't see why we should live our lives in the manner in which some godawful nerd says we should. Dictionaries are written by people too - they're not an infallible source of wisdom, nor do they necessarily reflect how most think about words right now.

The meaning of a word changes over time. This is inescapable, inexorable. You cannot order the sun not to shine, you cannot order the waves not to break, you cannot keep a word fixed in time.

So if you believe that a word should only be used for one purpose, you're going to have to justify it. If we changed the definition so that marriage can only be used for breeding pairs of humans, then that could work. But simply saying it should be man and woman when the overwhelming force of linguistic inertia seems to be pushing to make it 'two people joined together' isn't going to work.
on May 17, 2008
mar·riage Pronunciation[mar-ij] –noun1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.


Yes, I do realize that the dictionary definition includes "man and woman" and "husband and wife". Under the laws in most states that's still accurate. The point was that "marriage" in and of itself is not religious in nature but rather a legal status.

on May 17, 2008
they deserve to suffer just as much as the rest of us.


   EXACTLY!
on May 17, 2008

Foreverserenity writes:

I have no objections to people of the same sex marrying each other?

MasonM posts:

Doesn't bother me,

CACTOBLASTA POSTS:

I really don't see why we should live our lives in the manner in which some godawful nerd says we should.

LOCAMAMA POSTS:

I have no problem with gay marriage at all.

OCKHAMSRAZOR POSTS:

If people would just let them be, everything would be fine.

How about Tom, Dick and Harry getting married? Or Tom, Dick and Sally? Or Tom, Sally, Julie, Heather and Kate? Or Sally and her loving cat?

 

 

 

on May 17, 2008
How about Tom, Dick and Harry getting married? Or Tom, Dick and Sally? Or Tom, Sally, Julie, Heather and Kate? Or Sally and her loving cat?


Well since this isn't about polygamy or bestiality, what exactly is your point? Why must those who feel the need to oppose gay marriage also feel the need to bring up bestiality? It has bearing on the issue at all.
Meta
Views
» 27846
Comments
» 225
Category
Sponsored Links