I've never understood the objection to gay marriage. We humans are pair-bonding creatures and we seem to feel safest when coupled. It's not true for everyone, of course, but most of us eventually want a partner to merge our books and lives with. Marriage provides certain extremely useful perks: a partner to be with you when you are ill, someone to share your poverty or wealth with, someone to share your celebrations and devastations, someone to raise children with. You'd think the right wing would be pleased that gay people share the same needs as other Americans.
In the past, gay people had to adopt their lovers to leave them their goodies. Or they had to go without a next-of-kin to depend on in hospital. All sorts of legal mumbo-jumbo was required because marriage was forbidden. And why? Because a bigoted old Bible seemed to imply that God made Adam and Eve -- not Adam and Steve -- as the anti-gay faction likes to say.
I've often found that gay people are better at marriage than straight people. They don't get all bent out of shape about sex for sex's sake. At least this is true for gay men. And they don't run to bust up a perfectly cozy union because one member of the couple -- or both -- has a fling. Some couples are faithful and some not. And they seem to practice this without the territoriality and hypocrisy of mixed-sex couples. Actually, they should be our role models in marriage. They take it far more seriously than straight people -- perhaps because it was forbidden for so long.
So hurrah for California and Massachusetts. Let's hope the anti-gay lunatic fringe eventually sees gay marriage as a blessing not a curse. It certainly promotes stability and family. And it's certainly good for kids.
But the truth is the anti-gays don't think rationally. They need their wedge issues to distract the populace from reality. Anti-gay rhetoric is a useful political smokescreen. It obscures the fact that the rich are getting richer and that nobody gives a hoot about the poor. Whenever people get exercised about sex -- suspect the truth: they want to pick your pocket.
My point is: If homosexuals feel that they are confused and have mixed feelings about their sexuality not matching their emotions, then they can continue doing what they have been doing for thousands of years. Be it, but keep it to yourselves. I am not unsympathetic to people who unfortunately aren’t normal. The argument of Heterosexuals who in case that no one noticed happen to be the vast majority, is that they don’t want to hear about it. We don’t want to drive under a banner that says “Gay and Lesbian proud week”. Don’t kid yourselves; being dysfunctional is nothing to be proud about. We don’t want to have to worry about our children been talked in school to accept a dysfunctional life style. It is abusive and misleading to children who are talked at home how to grow up to live a normal life. Get my point?
The gay pride parade? That's a result of the discrimination against gays. The crews on cruise ships have more gays per cubic foot than anywhere else on Earth (I should know, I've been all over the world working on cruise ships) and they are accepted as equals along with everyone else. There are no "gay pride" events, no demonstrations, no gay identity issues. Why? On a cruise ship, a gay man is just another man working beside you. The only difference is he's not competing with you for the available women. He's still conversing with you in the mess as an equal, shooting pool with you in the ports when you have some time off and buying his share of the beer in the crew bar. I suspect you've never (knowingly) met a homosexual so you are reacting to the simplistic fear points drivin into you by the church and the right-wing.
Howiseeit... you've got a point, but if you wear a hat, nobody will notice. (Yeah, I know, old joke... they can't all be gems). Is it normal? No, not to you and not to me, however to JohnJames for instance, it is. You can't just project your own ideas like that... we're all different. As far as extinction is concerned, I don't think the tiny percentage of humans who are exclusively gay are endangering the survival of the species. Far too many people are having far too many kids (for example, my wife had six by a previous marriage) so we should be grateful to gays for their efforts in keeping the numbers down. We are going to have a far greater population bust than any birth-control system could dream of due to the impending famine and retroactive abortion otherwise known as war caused by overpopulation.
Exodus 22:19
19Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.
Leviticus 18:22
22Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Leviticus 18:23
23Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.
Leviticus 20:13
13If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Leviticus 20:15
15And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.
Leviticus 20:16
16And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
OBAMA '08
You know, as opposed to "real marriage" or "normal marriage." It's same-sex marriage or marriage equality. FYI, gay people already get married. For example, anyone who marries Liza Minnelli.
As Ms Jong states "I've often found that gay people are better at marriage than straight people. They don't get all bent out of shape about sex for sex's sake. At least this is true for gay men. And they don't run to bust up a perfectly cozy union because one member of the couple -- or both -- has a fling." With such morality should I worry about using a public toliet?
It is not a question of being open and honest, it is an issue of what is proper moral behavior within a community. Based on your logic I should feel as comfortable using the female restroom and certainly no women should be able to complain as I am an open and honest hetrosexual. Certainly if the a women feels uncomfortable with me being in there with her, the problem is hers because she is a hetro-phobe.
Did I get it right?
This is a very shaky statement regardless that crooked lawyers and judges exist, however law is not written to be friviously overturned, and retrial for fair hearing is usually where something unusual such as this would be corrected.
Also, of late (tongue in cheek) I have discovered that not everything people say, is always in fact true.
From: Dontbefoolish
Mrs. Jong, first of all. I believe that you never understood the objection to gay marriage because you chose not to. Let me help you begin to think about gay marriage by offering you some tidbits of thought, that I believe will help you begin to understand.
There is a reason why, someone created each and every specieis as a Male and a Female. This was done for one reason, and one reason only. To propagate each species. Any thing different than that usually creates some kind of confusion.
Now when you begin to change the nature of things, you create some kind of confusion. Let’s take for instance, our planet. You kill off species that need to be in place, and you create confusion, you melt the polar ice caps when they are not supposed to melt, and you create confusion.
Now some of this confusion if immediately dretrimental, and other confusion becomes detrimental over time. So understand, no one hates gay people. But there is an order to somethings that were never meant to be changed, and when you do try to change them, you create confusion, and from the outset of this decision, I can tell you that it is more detrimental to our country and the world as a whole than you think Now I could go on, but I will not. Because I believe, that you can take it from here.
Using your argument you should be just as offended by married straight couples who decide never to have children. Does that not also fly in the face of the reason we were "created" male and female, to propagate?
Gay people do not have to have sex to have children. They don't require high-tech equipment either, just a syringe. So your argument that gay marriage somehow disrupts nature is nothing but hot air.
Gays make up a SMALL percentage of this population...we aren't recruiting, so how is offering me and my partner of 7 years the same benefits that a straight couple who just met last week and married on a whim going to create such "confusion"? I could get ripped in Vegas and marry the first thing that walked by and someone like you would consider that more worthy of those protections than my current longstanding relationship with another woman? Because you fear our extinction?
Yeah, I get that *you* don't hate gay people - but there are those out there that DO. Do us a favor and stop making it harder for those of us who HAVE families, to protect them.
However this is not truly valid, example are States providing 'Union' contracts in civil law that enable whatever commitment or stipulation will be agreed upon in this type of union.
The truth of the matter is more likely the monetary value that is involved concerning married couples in working contracts being able to list their partner in various plans such as healthcare or other shared benefit available. There are many other issues all covered in existing civil law, such as who may visit or sign legal matters for an individual in a hospital, again all matters of civil law and not a fact of nature.
A marriage license will not make same-sex individuals into child bearing enabled, this is not a religious issue but a fact of nature between a man and woman, so what is being sought is civil law changes and not altering of nature through civil law.
In the future many sceintific discoveries may alter many things, a pigs uterus and a monkeys ovum fertalized with an artificial sperm may produce many things, but a marriage certific is answer to none of todays same-sex problems, in fact will only create new problems.
My suggestion to those that believe civil law is not treating them correctly, is to change civil law beginning with Unions that have already been passed by some States.
1996 -- In the Journal of Abnormal Psychology released in August, a University of Georgia researcher concluded that a group of homophobic men (men who feared and hated homosexuals and dreaded being close to them) contained twice as many men who were sexually aroused by erotic photos of men as did an equal group of nonhomophobic men. - source - http://www.newsoftheweird.com/cgi-bin/search/newsweird.cgi?query=Georgia&num=3
I had a guy once ask me to tell him the truth, which would I rather have for a neighbor, a black family or a white family. He asked the question very smugly as if he knew the answer already. But he was wrong. He didn't realize I'd had white neighbors, black neighbors, hispanic neighbors and gay neighbors already. I knew exactly which ones I prefer.
"Given a choice I always choose the good neighbors Who will turn down their music when I ask them to without getting mad. Who will call 911 if they see someone snooping around my house.
But I'll tell you what I'm not thrilled with living around, people that believe A. That God is a just and kind God PLUS B. that he would want us to extend one iota less rights and freedoms to Gay people.
Most of the opposition arrises from the sudden and coerced change in a thousands-of-years-old more; specifically, the cooptation of the use of the word "marriage" to apply to GAY MARRIAGE which is tangibly different. Had the GAY COMMUNITY(?) had the foresight to choose another word(s) for the same contractual institution--perhaps, from Greek or Sanskrit--the raucous/acrimonious confrontation could have been finessed.
Perhaps, it was, in fact, this VERY CONFRONTATION that was the REAL OBJECTIVE......?
Homosexuals are not fighting only people's 'natural' point of view. they are fighting Judeo-Christian theology -- an imbuement, for all intent, that will never go away. Sure, compassionate people would understand your frustration; but your fight must be through the arena of Civics. Telling heterosexuals, they as fantasizing about homosexuality will not help you at all. If you are true to your script then be a better example. I assure you some of us will never go against those ancient laws.