When Gays get Married, Who does it Really Bother?

Published on May 17, 2008 By foreverserenity In Blogging

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 4)

ParaTed2k

on May 19, 2008

Did they change polygamy laws and nobody noticed?

Actually, yes they did. Polygamy was legal by federal law, and many state laws until the mid 1800s. A federal ban on polygamy literally led to war.

MasonM

on May 19, 2008

If that is your standard, then I guess there shouldn't be any definition to marriage.

Age of consent, bestiality, and polygamy, are all irrelevant separate issues which would remain unchanged even if same sex marriages are made legal.

As for the quoted statement, that's impossible as marriage is a legal civil status and thus must be defined under the law.

I am a straight guy who, quite frankly, have never really understood the homosexual thing at all and in all honesty personally find the idea to be a bit repulsive. I am also quite far from PC. That said, if two guys or two women want to bugger each other, or even get married, it's none of my business. That's just how I feel about it and I don't think that allowing same sex marriages is going to usher in the downfall of western civilization or the end of the world.

I spend my time and energy concerned with what I personally do, not what other people choose to do.

MasonM

on May 19, 2008

Actually, yes they did. Polygamy was legal by federal law, and many state laws until the mid 1800s. A federal ban on polygamy literally led to war.

I believe we're discussing current events not ancient history.

KarmaGirl

on May 19, 2008

Do you ever think that it is not unatural because it is not what is known to be natural because what is known to us is man and woman? That is how religion as us introduced to the earth in its' sexuality.

Throw religion out the window. Let's look at the laws of nature. We're just animals. How many other animals look for a mate of the same sex? In nature, sex is used for procreation. People do it for the fun of it (as do pigs...but that's a different article all together), but that doesn't change the nature of it. People were naturally made to find a mate of the opposite sex. It's pretty darn tough to procreate with your own sex. So, when I say "unnatural", it means just that- it's against nature.

ParaTed2k

on May 19, 2008

Age of consent, bestiality, and polygamy, are all irrelevant separate issues which would remain unchanged even if same sex marriages are made legal.

Ah, but they would all fall under the terms of the question here.

MasonM

on May 19, 2008

Ah, but they would all fall under the terms of the question here.

Actually they wouldn't. They're separate laws and tangential to the topic at hand.

lulapilgrim

on May 19, 2008

So, when I say "unnatural", it means just that- it's against nature.

Yes, a simple knowledge of the human body tells us the body parts don't fit.

lulapilgrim

on May 19, 2008

Age of consent, bestiality, and polygamy, are all irrelevant separate issues which would remain unchanged even if same sex marriages are made legal.

It seems MasonM that you are feeling this on emotion rather than logically thinking this through with your brain.

Investigate what the California law was before the 4 judges changed it and what the unintended consequences of changing it means. You should come up with the conclusion that once the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman is changed because of one special interest group (i.e. homosexuals)sued for "equality", then anything goes when the next group sues.

MasonM

on May 19, 2008

duplicate

MasonM

on May 19, 2008

No it's you who are not thinking logically or even factually.

You're dragging in a lot of unrelated issues to the original post. The original post asked a very simple question, and didn't in any way even bring up this court decision you keep harping on. It's all irrelevant to the actual question asked.

And as for your "unintended consequences" they're all in your mind and pure bullshit. I'll say it one last time before I begin ignoring you for persisting in dragging up irrelevant issues in an attempt to avoid addressing the original post, every single irrelevant issue is addressed separately under various separate laws. Create all the hypothetical boogie men you like if that's what you need to do to justify your bigotry, but it just doesn't wash in the light of reason and fact.

Oh and by the way, fuck you for even attempting to say that I don't use my head. I'd be willing to bet that I'm a damn sight smarter than you'll ever be. Typical ploy, someone disagrees with you they must not be using their head. What you believe to be logic is pure hyperbolic bullshit.

lulapilgrim

on May 19, 2008

You're dragging in a lot of unrelated issues to the original post. The original post asked a very simple question,

MasonM,

The title of the article asks, "who does it really bother?"

I'm simply answering the question by pointing out that this court decision to allow homosexual "marriage" really bothers not only me but 61% of the voting electorate in California...I'm sure this fool hardy decision by 4 activists judges really BOTHERS them. They understand the unintended consequences of what it means when 4 unelected judges attempt to overturn existing California law and make up their own.

and didn't in any way even bring up this court decision you keep harping on.

MasonM,

Your are mistaken.

Foreverserenity wrote this as the fifth paragraph of her article:

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.

Check out the link and learn something about this issue and what prompted Foreverserenity to write the article and ask the title question before you castigate and curse profanities at me. Shame on you.

You've called me a bigot twice now. Why is my having a viewpoint against homosexual "marriage" bigotry to you?

And you still haven't answered my initial question: Would it bother you if Tom, Dick and Harry or Tom, Dick and Sally want to get "married"? If it would, then why would it? If not, why not?

MasonM

on May 19, 2008

Check out the link and learn something about this issue and what prompted Foreverserenity to write the article and ask the title question before you castigate and curse profanities at me.

OK, I said I was going to ignore you and I will after this. I have read extensively on this and am quite well informed despite your asinine assumption to the contrary. I read far more than just opinions from some religious leaders somewhere.

Her article, which does mention this decision (I admit I forgot about that at the moment), is not about the decision itself but how exactly some people seem to think it will take something away from them. It won't plain and simple, despite your boogie man "unintended consequences" hyperbole.

And as for your harping on how the court ignored the will of the voters, perhaps you should educate yourself on the role of a supreme court. It is not to bow down to the will of voters but to determine whether or not a law is constitutional. You should have learned that in high school.

As for the profanities, perhaps now you just may be able to discern the difference between an emotional response and a reasoned position (but I doubt it). Imply or state again that I do not think or somehow base my reasoned positions on emotion instead of reason and you'll see far more than that you twit.

dynamaso

on May 19, 2008

Being pro-homosexual "marriage" is being against marriage. There is no having it both ways.

This is, without a doubt, the biggest load of rubbish I've read on this post.

Essentially, you're saying that I, as a married man who support gay marriages, am against marriage? How can you say this without even realising how many people you're offending? My marriage is extremely important and very dear to me.

How dare you try to devalue this so dismissively.

lulapilgrim

on May 19, 2008

And as for your harping on how the court ignored the will of the voters, perhaps you should educate yourself on the role of a supreme court. It is not to bow down to the will of voters but to determine whether or not a law is constitutional.

MasonM,

The California Supreme Court imposed, through judicial fiat, homosexual "marriage" on Californians....this means that 4 judges banned the existing California law (marriage between a man and a woman) and made a new California marriage law....making law is the role of state legislatures working of, by and for the people NOT the role of SUPREME COURT JUDGES.

foreverserenity

on May 19, 2008

Being pro-homosexual "marriage" is being against marriage. There is no having it both ways.

That is your opinion! You do not speak for me, nor me for you! Denying the rights of any individual is wrong! When does human rights enter into this equation? ONLY when you want it to? Only when you see it fit, because it has your approval stamped all over it?

he new definition of "marriage" now becomes open for any arrangement, whether it's same gender, threesomes, bisexuals, you name it. They, too, under their "sexual orientation" may claim "equality" under the judges' new definition of marriage and could apply for a marriage licence.

Again, you confuse the issues, as Mason points out, but you do not listen because you hear only your voice. The law doesn't set out to put an end to Marriage of heterosexuals, or the sacredness of Marriage, rather the law seeks to give the rights to individuals who choose to have a partner of the same sex, human rights, not bestiality, nothing else that you keep inserting to make your point.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!