Help me understand this. Why shouldn't two gay people who love each other and want to make a lifelong commitment to one another be able to marry one another?
I've thought about this a lot and I've never been able to understand the opposition to gay marriage except that it is simply a form of discrimination against homosexuals. I've heard people say that they don't oppose homosexuality but think that marriage should be only between a man and a woman. I can't reconcile those positions intellectually. If you accept homosexuality then why shouldn't you want gays to be able to marry one another and enjoy the same rights and privileges as heterosexual spouses? How can so many religious conservatives who oppose gay marriage want to promote loving families yet prevent their formation?
Obviously the defeat last week of Proposition 8 in California got me to thinking about this again, and I still can't figure it out. Am I missing something here? Please help.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
9 comments:
Well, you answered your own question concerning religious conservatives! They are called religious conservatives for a reason.
As for everyone else, that is another question. Perhaps this society can only make one giant leap at a time. Seems like the majority (at least in California) just isn't ready to give up the "old' definition of marriage. I must admit I am not sure if I would vote yes on Prop 8. Perhaps some sort of a civil union would be ok with me, something that would protect partners in areas of health care, estate issues and so on.
Honestly, I just don't see the need. Families and the institution of marriage are formed in order to protect "children" not adults. I would say the "majority" of gay couples don't have children and perhaps that is why most people dont see the urgency to step in and make a change. I am sorry gays dont have equal rights to marriage, but I can't say it is an important issue to me. I dont really see who is getting hurt.
As you say, you see no good reason why gays shouldn't be allowed to get married. I just dont see a good reason to change the law in order to allow gays to get married.
The best example of why marriage as we currently have it is not the holy institution that the anti- gay folks think it is, is the beloved and IMO imbalanced Elizabeth Taylor. (She and others like Mickey Rooney, no doubt a good Catholic boy, have made it a joke.)
So, because she is straight, all EIGHT of her marriages are valid and true and real and should be honored?
But my neighbors, two women who have been together since college and are sharing in the raising of 2 charming and happy kids, do not have a valid relationship b/c there is no piece of paper from the government that says so. Ridiculous!
Their marriage trumps any of those with a piece of paper b/c theirs is not confused by the official, by the technical;it is simply held together by nothing more than their word to each other- a promise that was made with no 'legally binding' distractions.
Their word: remember when a person's word was everything? We could learn from them.
As a matter of fact, Pete and I often ask why we ever got married? We lived a committed life ( not the institutional kind) and had the same level of commitment then and now and if we never threw a wedding reception, we 'd have a lot more money on our hands!!! It was a fun night but....yikes!
PS: Pete says we should oppose gay marriage simply to save them from what we know to be a disappointment and a living hell....nice hubby!
Anonymous, by your logic, heterosexual couples with no intent to reproduce should not be pemitted to marry?
I still don't get it. Isn't this a basic matter of civil rights?
Not only am I for gay marriage, but I think that in the current economic environment we should spin gay marriage as a patriotic thing to do - think of the economic stimulus that thousands of weddings would provide!
But to answer your question, the only truly reasonable answer is that people can't mind their own business and they get their knickers in a twist about what goes on behind other people's closed doors. It's maddening.
Seriously, if my gay neighbors decide to get legally married, how on earth does that impact my life and my marriage? Not one bit.
I can turn it around and say "What's the Big Deal about calling it a "marriage" or a "civil union" as long as all the same provisions are in place"?
Personally, I don't have strong feelings on the issue, but traditionally and relgiously marriage has been defined a certain way. If some people do feel strongkly about that it doesn't necessarily make them a bigot. What if that same person is all for civil unions, that gives all the same benefits. In my opinion that's a compromise that should solve the problem.
I am for gay rights and agree that a gay family can be just as strong as a "straight" family and in many instances probably more so, but "marriage" is just a word. If it means so much to one side (gays) to have that word belong to them as well, why can't it mean so much to another side (religious conservatives) to protect that same word?
As I said to me personally its not a big issue, and I don't really care if they call it "marriage" or "civil union" as long as gays are afforded all rights and benefits of marriage at the very least, but I can see both sides on the issue.
Some will bring up the "seperate but equal" argument which to me is disingenous. I will discuss that point futher if called upon, but for the purpose of time and space, I'll juts leave it out there.
I'd be willing to further discuss if necessary but don't feel this space will allow me to properly lay down th
Citizen "NO" I do not think marriage is a right based on "intent" to procreate. Clearly, you are taking my point to extreme absurdity.
Why should we change the law? Who will it benefit and how? You brought it up by saying you see no reason to ban gay marriage. Well, I am asking you What valid reason do you see for changing the law? Love?...oh you are not naive enough to think that marriage is based on love alone.
It seems to me society has labeled the union of two people who love each other with this religious term. Being a firm believer in the separation of church and state, why not scrap any law concerning the union of two adults of the religious based marriage label?
If two people are interested in spending their life together, gay or straight, why can't they get a civil union license. This one sized fits all approach would provide the same legal status for both gay and heterosexual couples.
If those same couples then want to celebrate their union in their house of worship, then maybe that church can determine what label is appropriate.
If your church isn't into calling non heterosexual unions marriage, find one that will.
Seems simple enough to me.
Meatloaf for Congress!
i agree with meatloaf, as the constsitution has not mention of the gov't being involved with such a personal decision.......
Post a Comment