While looking for something totally unrelated, I happened upon information concerning the issue of gay marriage. Normally, I'd pass something like this by as I have my own opinion regarding this matter. But something in the article I happened upon caught my eye and I decided to take a look at what it was all about. The thing I had seen was the second image I've attached to this post; a pair of religious icons pictured together. Now, I'm not taking a stand here one way or another and I'm not trying to tell you how you should think. What I hope to do is at least present a few issues to maybe make you...and others...think.
Part of the arguement against gay marriage stated, "Same-sex couples will undercut the conventional purpose of marriage as interpreted by culture, religious and traditional understanding." That got me wondering about the narrowmindedness of it all and who "they" were to say "they" were right in "their" thinking and so many others were wrong. I read the article further and felt compelled to investigate and find out a little more information and some facts pro and con. Granted, while reading, my mind started coming up with questions and reasonings of my own.
It was stated same-sex marriage cannot fulfill common procreation rolls. Okay, unless someone is nothing more than a brussel sprout, we all can figure out through the lessons we learned in science and health classes back when we were a child, two men cannot reproduce with one another as can neither two women. But when you take those same lessons learned into consideration, there's a thing called artificial insemination and surrogacy. Same-sex couples may not be able to produce children with one another, but two females can become pregnant with donations from males and two males can have a child with a surrogate female. I have heard of that already being done in the homosexual community, so it seems gay men and women can live hand-in-hand helping one another "procreate" like heterosexual couples do.
I noticed another phrase along the same line stated as a reason same-sex marriage should not be allowed, because it would create a "sterile relationship". So if a couple is "sterile", they should not be allowed to marry. How many heterosexual couples are in a sterile relationship because one or both are unable to carry out their role in producing a child due to some physical or medical problem? Does that mean a female who was born with a "defect" in her reproductive system should never be allow to marry? Or a male who is unable to perform because a medication he's taking doesn't allow the process to take place should prevented from taking a wife? And what about older people who have passed the childbearing stage of their life? Two people meet in their later years after the woman has gone through menopause. They should not be allowed to join in matrimony because the woman is not able to bring forth a child? Sounds like that arguement is all full of holes, too.
Even putting those reasons aside, there is such a thing as adoption, too. Despite there being ways for same-sex couples to have children of their very own, let's put that issue aside for a moment. There is always adoption. Granted, they would not physically have the child themselves, but adoption would legally make them parents and technically, they would not be childless. And how many children are there, not only here in our country, but around the world, who are living without parents in orphanages and longing so much to have someone accept them into a family and love them as a son or daughter? There are probably many more children in that situation than there would be same-sex couples to go around. If heterosexual couples can bring a child into their lives this way and create a family, why would it be any different if samesex couples did the same? Isn't a family two parents with a child or children whom all love one another? Seems like another issue has been shot down.
Another anti-same-sex marriage issue stated was that they would "damage traditional family unions". Now, I live in a small village and, yes, there are many traditional families here in town...mom and dad, 2.3 children, house with a white picket fence and a dog running around in the yard. But there are also non-traditonal familes here, so they must be everywhere. What about all those single mothers with children and no male in the household? Are those "traditonal family unions"? How about the families with all the members to fill the various roles of a traditional family, but the male (or female) is a drunk or drug addict or molester beating and raping and abusing the children and spouse? That sounds like a nice, wholesome traditional family. What about the family where one of the parents lands in prison and is abscent for 25 years to life? The ones who are now left on the outside not behind bars should be penalized because they are no longer a traditional family? We can forget about this "excuse" to disallowed same-sex marriage because the world is no longer made up of the ideal dream of what homelife is all about seeing how times have changed and you can no longer classify a family in the storybook sense. And if we're going that far, do we classify our service men and women not part of a traditional family any more because they're not filling their role seeing they're not physically with their family due to the fact they're halfway around the world performing their duty the government has called upon them to do?
But there will be an increase in homosexual couples. I'm sorry, but that won't change, either. There are many homosexual couples out there already in whatever form they want; boyfriends and girlfriends, co-habitating couples in committed relationships, closeted men and women who spend time with their same-sex lovers whenever they can behind their heterosexual partner's backs. Many same-sex couples already do exist. It's just most people don't even know it. And they're going to want to be together whether anything is legalized or not. Do you think an official ruling is going to be a magical magnet attracting gays to one another all of a sudden? Leaglization just means you'll see more of them and the general public will become more aware as they'll be out in the public eye more, since many of them will feel more accepted and it will be alright for them to do so.
Religion came into play in a big way in keeping a ban on same-sex marriage. Just say no to sexual acts that their respective religion probibits. Well, how many churches accept and even have as parishioners and pastors homosexuals? Guess that means a religious defense is no defense at all. But same-sex marriage goes against Biblical teachings. Let's take a look back to the 4th century...the subjects of that second image I have posted here. Christian martyrs, Saint Sergius and Saint Bacchus, were united in the rite of adelphopoesis back in the mid 300's...just three hundred or so years after the birth of Christ. Adelphopoesis is a ritual of "brother-making", which was an early form of religious same-sex marriage. If the church approved and blessed same-sex unions then, why has the same practice all of a sudden become so wrong seventeen hundred years later?
Stymied with being called on that arguement, the religious fanatics then point to the evils of Sodom and Gemorrah. *Gasps and covers eyes* Have we been taught the way things should be...or the way religious interpreters saw it and want us to believe it's their way or the highway? People, Sodom and Gemorrah were not filled with just homosexuals. It's true! In the original "Sin Cities"; it was anything and everything goes. There were many, many more heterosexuals "doing their thing" than homosexual activity, so the downfall of Sodom and Gemorrah cannot solely be blamed on gays when the vast majority of the offenders were straight.
As I've already mentioned, some churches already sanction same-sex mariage and perform ceremonies so the couples are at least recognized in union in the eyes of God. I'm wondering, is this a different God??? Isn't He the same everywhere; just called by different names? And didn't He make humans in His own eye? Hmmmm...last I knew, homosexuals were still humans, though some don't like to treat them that way and afford them the same rights as all the other humans they live among. Isn't God all-loving...unconditionally? God loves all mankind. It's good enough for Him, but not for others...and they call themselves followers of the Lord.
Two people on earth die at the same time and float up to the pearly gates of Heaven; one is a God-worshipping homosexual and the other is a religious fanatic. They are greeted by Saint Peter who informs them it's been a busy day, Heaven has almost reached its quota and there's only room to allow entry for one more soul. He asks both to give their reasons why they should be the one he allows to walk through those Golden Gates and take a seat at the right hand of God, the Father Almighty. The religious fanatic swears up and down God is the only one in his life. He's followed in the Lord's footsteps spreading the word of the gospel. But his interpretation of God's word has lead him to despise and hate some of God's creations because they go against what he believes. The homosexual loves God and all God loves; unconditionally, as his Savior does; even the religious fanatic who is against him. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out who gets the halo and wings and who who goes away empty-handed.
Some places around the world have already realized same-sex marriage has a place in their societies. It's only a matter of time before this country follows suit. It's eventually happened with all others who were not afforded the equal rights they've deserved in the past. They've had to struggle and "prove" why they were deserving to be treated as a human being before "those in charge" finally smacked themselves on their foreheads and realized they actually had a valid point because they were a person; maybe a different type of person, but still a person nevertheless. Why not just legalize same-sex marriage as soon as possble and save everyone all that bother, time and money? It seems like a legitimate human right everyone should have the opportunity to take advantage of. Blacks were set free and finally allowed to marry other members of their own race after the Civil War. Women finally earned the right to vote after beginning their suffrage movement back in the mid-1800's. African-Americans fought to be treated as equals with the civil rights movement and a legal ruling was handed down in 1967, 40 years ago now, allowing mixed marriage between couples of different races. The winds of change always blow and they've been strong enough to sustain the causes of the past. What makes the "powers that be" think it's going to be any different now? The track record speaks for itself. Blacks, women; even immigrants; have all won their rights to be treated equally as a human being. Homosexuals have been recognized as humans finally, but all they want is the same equality afforded to all other humans in the same ways.
A black lesbian from South Africa emmigrates to America to become a legal cizitzen of our nation. It's almost like a game show to see which rights you win. You're a black...you've earned the right to be treated equally. You're a female...you've earned the right to be treated equally. You're an immigrant coming to our country following the proper preceedures...you've earned the right to be treated equally. You're a homosexual...you've earned the right to be treated equally. You want to marry another female? Oh, I'm sorry...we've run out of time on today's show and we won't be able to get to your right to marry. We hope you've enjoyed playing and had fun. Johnny...tell her what she's won!
Six countries in the world are progressive enough to legalize same-sex marriage as a basic human right: The Netherlands; being the very first; Belgium, Canada, South Africa and Spain with Isreal recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other countries only because and despite their own national religion refusing to recognize homosexual marriage and perform the cermonies to concecrate same-sex unions. Civil unions, domestic partnerships and registered partnerships on the way to same-sex marriage are recognized in most of Europe and other parts of the world: Andorra, Croatia, The Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom - all of the countries of the British Isles...Argentina, Brazil, Columbia, Isreal, New Zealand, Australia and Mexico. America's neighbors to the north and south approve, but it's not good enough for the most powerful nation of the world. I wonder what America is so scared about? At least the tide is turning somewhat with same-sex marriage at least being accepted somewhat with certain degrees of recognition in California, Conneticutt, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Vermont and our own capitol of Washington, D.C. Looks like we remain a nation divided: Red states, Blue states, Gay states.
According to statistics from the Gallup New Service pollsters (they were the ones who came up with these numbers; not me)...95% of all Americans agree homosexuals should have equal rights on job opportunities. That's a mighty big majority; up almost 40% from the 56% who found this acceptable just 30 years ago in 1977. ...Two thirds of all Americans, roughly 68%, believe homosexual relationships should be recognized as legal, up from 43% back in 1977. That's a majority of our citizens who believe this now compared to opinion from thirty years back. ...and 52% of Americans favor at least legally forming civil unions with some legal rights of marriage, if not legal marriage with all rights. Granted, it's a slight majority, but a majority nonetheless.
With all this said, all I'm asking is that you think about what others have said and some of the points I've been able to come up with standing back and taking an objective look at this topic. Doesn't it seem to be valid that if you are a true American, you should believe in liberty, justice and equality for all? It's an issue we're faced with now and it won't go away. Should homosexuals be treated a second class and be segregated from the rest of our citizens not being afforded all of the same rights everyone else recieves? Take the time to look inside your mind and realize what is right and just. What's your opinion? I and others really would like to know!
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 55
However, I would agree with you; they should NOT be considered second class citizens. Unfortunately, you may not find many who would agree with you, especially here.
I agree whole heartedly with you. Live and let live is my motto. As an African American I cannot see stifling anyone rights because of how they look, feel or believe and it makes me cringe when other people do so. What I do not understand is why other people don't see this. Also congratulations on featured article.
As if one male/one female marriages guarantee stability and commitment!
If your stats are correct, the U.S. is progressing forward, maybe not as fast as some want, but if the acceptance of equality on the job has increased 40% in 30 years, that is progressing. Time, and slow accpetance in a manner where people see that they are hurting people, and not actions will do much more for the acceptance of Gay marriages "unions".
By the way, just because someone does not agree with gay unions "marriages" does not mean they are wrong, just have a different belief, or point of view. I do not think you are suggesting that we all just act like machines and only do what certain people would want us to do the way they want us to do it.
Overall, one of the best arguments that I have seen, in a positive tone mostly to the question of gay marriage "unions".
All that said, it is my personal opinion that no marriage should be recognized by the government. Civil unions of hetero/homosexual persons, ok. Marriage could be kept within the confines of the church and what specific churches decide to allow marriage-wise is pretty much up to them. I don't have to belong to a religious organization whose doctrine I don't support but, I can't say the same for my government.
Let the mudslinging begin!
Great article, Rob.
There are other biblical and theological arguments with which to counter the narrow and bigoted "proof texts" of the Bible thumpers.
In the New Testament, the "sins of Sodom" are related to pride, arrogance, neglect of the poor, and unbounded love of luxury. Nothing about sex at all.
Rob.... Exellent article. You completely hit the nail on the head. I don't understand why all this is a big deal. Live and let live. It doesn't matter to me what anyone decides to do in their lives as long as they are not trying to force me to do it. People have the right to live their own lives as they see fit. Thanks for the great article.
"... the permanent, sanctioned union of an adult male and an adult female, to live as a family, with or without creating or adoppting children, being morally and financial responsible for the children they do create or adopt."
Maybe, if we create this new word, we can throw the word "marriage" out for any definition that suits its users. Marriage can be homosexual, intra-familial, polygamist, even inter-species if you like.
However, with this new word, maybe we can preserve the sanctity of what many of us believe is the foundation of the family and society, without being called hateful. Who am I kidding? Of course we'll be called hateful, because it's OK to say whatever comes to our small minds when we talk about people who are
- white,
- Christian (especially Catholic),
- male,
- heterosexual,
- or European descent.
No need for political correctness in these situations, right?
While I do not agree with the homosexual lifestyle I have no problem in loving homosexual people. Many of my friends are homosexual. They know what my beliefs are. I know what their beliefs are. To be denied water and ice after such a disaster as Katrina~ especially by a church~ is horrid. We are to be the hands and feet of Christ on this earth. That is despicable. Thank you for pointing this out.
" But as long as it's legal for a hetero couple to get a marriage license, then it should be for the gay community as well.
Proposing that the gay community only be granted civil union status while the heterosexual community is granted a marriage is insulting and harkens back to the whole separate but equal nonsense that, quite frankly, is an embarassment to this county.
David,
I always did wonder what it would be like to be male. All that extra "stuff" to deal with :)
Believe it or not, my wife is more liberal than you. Makes for some interesting conversation. A good reason that we don't keep weapons in the house!
Arlene - The seperation of church and state would be welcomed. If the government says same-sex marriage is okay, it doesn't mean churchs would have to approve. If a church wishes to exclude recognizing same-sex marriage, it would be their right to do so. But with government approval, I'm sure you'd see more churchs recognize it, too, simply because of the legality of the issue being resolved.
Erika - I know there are those who have their own minds made up on the issue and that will never change. That is totally their right and no one is going to infringe on their rights.
David - You've got it on the discrimination issue...equal rights for human equality.
Liz - I don't think of women who can't bear children as having a defect; the reason for putting that word in quotation marks. They are still women...period. Others mat see them that way because they're not what those peopleclassify as a woman in the sense that the majority of females are. As for men, there are health problems and medications that prevent them from having full sexual relations, but are still men. And it's not to say they still can't sexually satisfy their partners. I was in no way attempting to put either group down. I was speaking in the way some of thos against sam-sex marriage would in refrring to tgeir agruement against legilsation due to the inability to procreate...and how ridiculous some of their agruement really is.
Mitch~ I understand what you are saying here. What we know as two people who want to make a life commitment would get a government sanctioned union. They would have rights and responsibilities as a union. Then if you wanted to, you could have a church sanctioned "marriage." That's really what marriage has boiled down to in these days anyway is a government sanctioned union of two people.
Ummm , to clarify a bit, I did hear on the news about a month ago, that the gays were asking for all marriages who did not have children to be illigal. This is wrong, if someone chooses not to have children this is their business,
All I have to say to this is THANK YOU. This is something a lot of people do not consider, and as a person that is in such a situation, I greatly appreciate it. Kudos from me as well!
As far as I'm concerned, people are people. We all have things that make us different from one another, but those differences don't make one person valid and the other not. Sexual orientation is one of those differences.
As you point out in your article, times change, people change, languages change, definitions change, attitudes change, all just part and parcel of the flow of life. I agree with Michelle, that at some point in the future, same sex marriage will be legal. As you wrote in your article, it already is legal in some countries and in many other countries, other kinds of unions and partnerships leading the way to same-sex marriage are fully recognized.
You have demonstrated the holes in the arguments of those against it. Most likely they will continue on with those same arguments. Even when same sex marriage is legal, they will continue on with their crusade against it with those same arguments.
If I am not mistaken, somewhere in the Bible, to be more specific, in the Christian Bible, as there are many "Bibles", there is something written about acceptance of others/being accepting of others. I will have to see if I can find it.
Vickey - Just keep in mind, many of the gays who speak out for same-sex marriage and some of their suggestions do not represent the majority of homosexuals in expressing their opinions. For the most part, homosexuals do not agree with the idea of making marriage illegal for those who do not have children; for anyone, heterosexual or same-sex couples.
Elsie - More need to take an example from you, too...a beautiful woman who has lived many years and is full of wisdom loving her family members unconditionally because that's the way it should be. Your values learned many years ago still should hold true with all today. Give Kimberly an extra hug for me next time and tell how I said she's so very lucky to have a lovely lady like you in her corner.
Luludi - You are first and foremost, a person...a human being...and that's all that should matter. I'm on your side.
Audrey - You got it, girl. Acceptance for all...unconditionally.
The position here in NZ when the Civil Union Act came into force was that "marriage" is primarily a religious concept in which the government has no right to meddle. Therefore they created the secular concept of a Civil Union which gives participants all the legal rights of a marriage. BTW Civil Unions here are not exclusively for homosexual couples. They are for any couples that wish the legal protections of a marriage without the religious consecration.
There is no compelling reason that gay couples should not be afforded every legal right that hetero couples have. I have known many gay couples that have formed happy families, with and without children, who show greater commitment to their relationships than do some of the "legally" married couples I know.
My gay friends who have decided to bring children into their families are raising happy, well-adjusted kids who are much loved. They should have the same rights as every other family.
I understand a "closet" is in many ways a prison, for worse or for better. The philosophical or other argument re: closet's and who belongs in there, or not, is NOT the subject of this address and large emission of love to people, gay or not, etc., or what?!