singrdave singrdave

Civil Unions v. Same-Sex Marriage

▼

Civil Unions v. Same-Sex Marriage

A letter from a lesbian friend

from JoeUser Forums

An email this morning from a friend of mine from high school brought up a very interesting question. Background: she and I dated for a little while in high school, but broke up after about six months. Time passed and we stayed in touch, off and on. After a failed marriage and four kids, she came out of the closet and is now in a committed relationship with a woman.

----------------------------------------

You know I have always been straight forward, so I seriously have a question. How can YOU be so strong against gay marriage? You have so many friends over the years that have been gay. I am not angry, just interested that you support your friends being happy as long as they don't receive the same rights you do?

Sorry you know I am straight forward and am really interested in your viewpoint. Not trying to offend...

----------------------------------------
 
Yes, you have always tended to be pretty forthright, and I'm not offended at all. This is a really good question, and one I made without really examining or trying to put my opinions into print. Let me see if I can get my thoughts together in a way that makes sense to you, as well as myself...

I don't have a problem with people who are gay. Just don't approve of the practice of homosexuality. You're right: I have several friends who are gay, in relationships, even one who's transgendered (male to female). I was even college roommates with a guy who later came out of the closet. I have worked with homosexuals of either gender -- more so in the military, go figure. While I try not to pigeonhole people, I have no problems with gay people. There's little (if any) difference between a homosexual and a heterosexual, except for the company they keep.

Here's an analogy: when I was in the Army, I supervised a great group of people who liked each other so much that they consistently got together after work to party together... just because I didn't go get drunk with them doesn't mean I couldn't work with them. While I didn't approve of their behavior and certainly wasn't going to join into the "fun", what they did on their own time was their own business. As long as their extra-work activities didn't affect their work performance and my expectations of them as their sergeant, then what they did on their own time was no big deal.

I think it's similar with homosexuality. What you do after hours is your own business. And here I paraphrase the mighty Jon Stewart: as long as "they" don't force me to make sweet man love, then what is the big deal?

Now for the more controversial part: I have always felt that marriage is a religious institution as well as a civil one. The civil and legal rights given through marriage (rights of survivorship, health benefits, etc.) are very important to uphold. I have always been supportive of same-sex benefits as far as the workplace goes. But I ascribe a lot of religious significance to the word "marriage" and seeing as how active homosexual relationships are against my religion I can't in good conscience approve of gay marriage.

As I said before, I have no problem with the civil unions, domestic partnerships, or any of the other-named legal and civil agreements (of which marriage is one) but I'd really rather not see marriage as a religious institution become something incompatible with my religious beliefs.
civil union domestic partnership marriage straight jon stewart religion transgender homosexual army same-sex benefits institution relationship
34,744 views 43 replies
Reply #26 from Stardock Forums Top

The idea that homosexuality is an inborn trait is debunked further and rather conclusively by the existence of hundreds of thousands of men and women who have successfully changed their sexualpreference and left the homosexual lifestyle.

many overcome all kinds of things but they always need the following:

acceptance

support

compassion

time

this is a good place to start

joa

Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top

Is this their choice? Is this their fault? and, since their population is growing, how shall we treat them within our society?
You say they have the same rights as everyone else and, technically, they do. But they are shunned, judged, rejected, and by some, hated for a quality they posess that most of them had nothing to do with.

I am close to two people who describe themselves as homosexual---one male in late 30's and a women in late 60s, both of whom suffered under the bondage of homosexuality and are now living chaste lives.  Every person has crosses to bear in this life and suffering is real and painful. Homosexual persons, like unmarried heterosexuals, must be chaste to be truly happy.

Most people I know including myself are the "live and let live" types.....very tolerant and fair-minded. But tolerance is no longer enough and most homosexuals want full blown acceptance and legal recognition of their sexual behavior in the form of "rights".  I do not buy into the victimhood status and am against giving legal recognition based upon a person's sexual behavior. I know that homosexuals aren't oppressed victims of unjust discrimination. They aren't being told to sit in the back of the bus and aren't being denied credit or education becasue of the sexual behavior. They are for the most part  successful, affluent, and undetectable unless they want to be detected.

Because of AIDS and other diseases, I can't agree  that the homosexual population is growing.

 

  

 

CursorFX - Customize your Windows cursor
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top

JOA,

I agree completely with your comments in #26.

Reply #29 from Stardock Forums Top

Lula-

I don't completely agree with your perspective but I believe, though not in the same paragraph, we are on the same page.

I have enjoyed your commments

JOA

Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top

So you're telling me that I can't kidnap the Rock and make him my husband? Darn.

Well, if you need help, I will donate some time. ;)

Okay, let's say two human beings, over the age of 18, should have the right to marry each other if they choose.

Hugh and Hillary Rodham should have the right to marry each other?

Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top

Hugh and Hillary Rodham should have the right to marry each other?

Ack!  okay two human beings, over the age of 18, who are NOT related to each other should have the right to marry if they choose. 

Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top

Ack! okay two human beings, over the age of 18, who are NOT related to each other should have the right to marry if they choose.

Boudica,

Same sex "marriage" is an issue of morality, of health, of societal re-structure and its consequences.

I can't think of one reason why we should redefine 2,000 years of marriage as between one man and one woman, our most basic social institution for begetting and rearing children, for the emotional needs of a few people who identify themselves as homosexuals.....can you?

This experiment has been done in Norway (also by court decree, btw), and Norway has seen less marriage, more out of wedlock birth, and skyrocketing family dissolution as a result.

Besides getting married isn't even on the radar screen of most homosexuals who most often have short lived and very casual, unstable relationships at best. "Gay marriages" happened in Massachusetts in 2004 when then Governor Romney began issuing marriage licences to homosexuals. Last year the stats came out of the Mass. dept of Public Health....there have been a total of 9, 695 "marriages",  and of those some 6, 121 took place in just over the first 6 months...

IN 2005, only 2,060 took the plunge, in 2006, 1,427 tied the knot, and by the end of April last year only 87.

Now, instead of marriage, the stats are coming in for those who married but now want to divorce and the heartache of splitting up the children.

So, it's not about the so called "right" to marry and it never has been at least for the most....it's about condoning the homosexual lifestyle and fostering total acceptance of it as worthy and equal to heterosexuality...when it isn't and will never be.

 

Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top

So, it's not about the so called "right" to marry and it never has been at least for the most....it's about condoning the homosexual lifestyle and fostering total acceptance of it as worthy and equal to heterosexuality...when it isn't and will never be.

That is your RELIGOUS belief.  Your religious beliefs do not dictate civil law. 

Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top

Ack! okay two human beings, over the age of 18, who are NOT related to each other should have the right to marry if they choose.

I can't think of one reason why we should redefine 2,000 years of marriage as between one man and one woman, our most basic social institution for begetting and rearing children, for the emotional needs of a few people who identify themselves as homosexuals.....can you?

Ya, marriage is a religious institution in my view....one that a wisw society won't mess with....

If religion offends you, answer my question without it...

Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top

Ack! okay two human beings, over the age of 18, who are NOT related to each other should have the right to marry if they choose.

I understood - I was just pulling your leg. ;)

Reply #36 from Stardock Forums Top

lulapilgrim wrote:

Ya, marriage is a religious institution in my view

And I have to agree.  Law oversteps its bounds when it starts regulating moral issues.

Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top

If religion offends you, answer my question without it...

I can only assume that a religion that recognises only a marriage between a man and a women is as offensive to followers of a religion that allows a marriage between two men as such a religion would be to followers of the first religion.

I understand that _my_ religion forbids homosexual marriages. But I also understand that some rabbis are now allowing them. I am fine with rabbinical decisions. It's a subject where I really don't have to have an opinion.

And I don't care about other religions and their rules. If the Unitarians (for example) want homosexual marriage among their followers, that's fine with me. And if some Christian church wants to recognise only marriages between a man and a woman, that's just as fine with me.

I have only three peripheral problems with homosexual marriage.

One is the issue about "equal rights". As I said before, we already have equal rights, all of us. It just happens to be a right homosexuals don't care about (the right to marry an individual of the opposite sex).

The second is about progress for the sake of progress. I think many countries now allow same-sex marriage just because it is fashionable to be among those who do it. I think that is wrong.

And the third is about attempts to introduce same-sex marriage without acknowledging that we have legal ways to introduce legislation. Judges _deciding_ that same-sex marriage exists is not the way we introduce new laws. That's how dictatorships introduce new laws. We should be careful.

 

Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top

If religion offends you, answer my question without it...
  Religion doesn't offend me at all.   I just don't believe that people's religous beliefs should be legislated.  When that happens we end up with a theocracy such as they have in Iran. 

Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top

And the third is about attempts to introduce same-sex marriage without acknowledging that we have legal ways to introduce legislation. Judges _deciding_ that same-sex marriage exists is not the way we introduce new laws. That's how dictatorships introduce new laws. We should be careful.
  This was a ruling by the California Supreme Court based on the California constitution.  It should not be compared to a dictatorship introducing new laws.  That is just an inaccurate assesment. 

Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top

This was a ruling by the California Supreme Court based on the California constitution.  It should not be compared to a dictatorship introducing new laws.  That is just an inaccurate assesment.

No. It is dictatorship.

If a court rules a law (in this case the law covering marriage licences or whichever it is) unconstitutional, it has to ask the legislative to modify the law or throw it out entirely. The court cannot just modify the law because the court does not represent the will of those who are allowed to make laws, the people.

It is up to parliament to modify the law. The court cannot pretend to know how the law should be made constitutional. For all the court knows parliament could decide to abolish marriage completely. That would certainly be constitutional according to how the court read the constitution.

It's up to parliament, never the courts!

 

+1 Loading…
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top

No. It is dictatorship.

If a court rules a law (in this case the law covering marriage licences or whichever it is) unconstitutional, it has to ask the legislative to modify the law or throw it out entirely. The court cannot just modify the law because the court does not represent the will of those who are allowed to make laws, the people.

Exactly to the point!

Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top

Exactly to the point!

Yes, Leauki, well stated...

and...sigh.....something that way too many people seem to forget. The point is, in the USA we have 3 distinct branches of federal and state government ...the Executive, (the President or Governor) the Legislative (the Congress) and the Judicial (the Court)

The Courts are only to interpret law, they cannot make law, that is the power of the legislative branch.

 

Reply #43 from Stardock Forums Top

Quoting Boudica, reply 31


Hugh and Hillary Rodham should have the right to marry each other?
Ack!  okay two human beings, over the age of 18, who are NOT related to each other should have the right to marry if they choose. 

Okay, here is a non-religious point....

If it is justified for homosexuals to marry (based on civil rights/discrimination what have you) then the same reasoning must apply to anyone.

 

You can't say...it's okay for gays to marry...but not if they are related.  (discrimination!  People have the right to love who they want)  So you would have to allow incestuous marriage....and plural marriage....and NAMBLA.....

 

Refusing to acknowlege any of these other groups to marry would be a personal or religious based reason (which people here seem to want to ignore) so they are stuck.  Anyone should be allowed to marry anyone they want for the legal benefits or simply the social status.

 

I can't think of anyone who can justify that.  So we are back to people justifying one group but not another....