In an abrupt departure from the rulings denying marriage equality in California, New York, and Washington, the Supreme Court of New Jersey unanimously held yesterday that homosexual couples are entitled to the same legal rights and financial benefits as their heterosexual counterparts. The 4 to 3 decision, however, reveals that the justices split on what should happen next. The majority ruled that the legislature has 180 days to decide whether the unions would be called marriage or something else, while the minority, who interestingly enough was completely appointed by Republicans, maintains that there is no reason to call it anything other than marriage. In many ways the decision was a very wise one. The far right can hardly try to politicize this decision to mobilize its base because the court took a position that reflects the attitude of most Americans; that homosexual couples should have all the same rights, but that it should not be called marriage. Regardless, this is a great day in the Gay Rights Movement. Or is it?
It seems that until the last few years, the Gay Rights Movement focused on unapologetically asserting that homosexuals were not only different, but that they had the right to be that way. After all, why shouldn’t someone be able to have sex with whom he wants, as often as he wants, and in whatever fashion he wants as long as both parties are consenting adults? Recently, however, the focus seems to have shifted to being able to prove that homosexuals are indeed identical to their heterosexual counterparts, save that one little detail. This trend is not only evidenced by the “new” gay families and the push for marriage rights, but also within the gay community itself with the rise of descriptions such as “straight acting” or “relationship oriented.”
The push for marriage, thus, seems to be wholly antithetical to nearly everything that gays have long fought for.
The push for marriage, thus, seems to be wholly antithetical to nearly everything that gays have long fought for. While I will not go as far as saying that gay marriage is a bad idea, it does not seem like many have actually stopped and asked what the ramifications may be for the gay community itself. As gay culture is already seeing a rupture in its community between the “good gays”—that is to say those who wish to get married and raise families—and the bad gays—those who wish to continue fighting for the right to not subscribe to the status quo—won’t this become even more pronounced as more homosexuals are actually given the right to get married? Once marriage rights are made fully available to homosexuals—and we all know that this will eventually happen—I do believe that day will mark the end of the gay community as we know it. One only needs to look to the African American community to see how the desire to prove that we are like “them,” can divide a people once wholly united. Ironically, the gay community, whose fight gave birth to an entire of culture of dissidence in the United States, will have inadvertently reinforced the idea that the only acceptable way to live is with two parents in one house with their 2.4 children.
Once again, Americans will have missed an opportunity to actually think outside of their Puritan boxes.
In the end, other alternative families—single parent homes, polyamourous couples, or any other combinations one can come up with—will be viewed less validly and respected much less than they already are. Once again, Americans will have missed an opportunity to actually think outside of their Puritan boxes. And strangely enough, perhaps finally placating conservatives once and for all, the unapologetic, radical homosexual will slowly fade into the distance, left behind by his friends that wanted to prove that they were just like everyone else.
29 responses so far ↓
Scott // Oct 26, 2006 at 4:34 pm
I do not believe radical people of any kind will fade into the distance. Perhaps this just means radicals need to find more ways to unite and fight the power more tactfully. I can embrace the concept of a “gay community” disappearing as long as I know that the activist community is still around. I’m not sure I know exactly how one defines the “gay community” anyhow. I certainly don’t feel like I belong to any “community” and the only possible remnants of a collective force that I see is in the bar culture. I certainly don’t see that as being a solid community in any respect. Perhaps the idea of a “gay community” comes from the gay rights movement from the 60’s. I think that community has long disappeared with the proliferation of log cabin republicans, gay assimilation tactics (as mentioned in this blog), AIDS, the increasing dilemma of drug and alcohol abuse and ever pressing matter of “coming out”. I know this all seems like doom and gloom talk but I see it more as an opportunity to form other ways to unite and act. Revolution?
mian shahid iqbal // Oct 27, 2006 at 6:01 am
I m a lawer in pakistan n here i mostly study about the homosexual issue raising in America and in other countrie as well.As a lawer , i cant understand that if any nation admit the homosexual couples then what will b there status in society.coz they can’t genrate human race.what will be there rigths b/w them.who will b called the admnistrator of the family?
And is there marriage can be legal in eyes of law?
what will be the fate of these homosexual couples when they will be old?
want these answers
Antonio // Oct 27, 2006 at 7:06 am
I wish I could get faster at this so that I could respond to the comments directly.
Scott, you probably are right. The gay community as one entity has long disappeared. I am probably optimistic in my thinking that the split over marriage and all is the beginning of the end, but as you pointed out, things started to crumble a long time ago. Lots of people say it started even back in the 70s when drag queens and transsexuals who had once been leaders in the stuggle in the early days were quieted and pushed away as embarassing stereotypes of the gay community. Who knows. All I do know is that if there is anything left, it’s not gonna be around much longer.
To the Pakistani attorney, since I am not a law student, I don’t know that I can really be of much help. All I can say is that the idea of gay marriage has arisen in America because of the enormous economic benefits bestowed upon straight married couples, but also because of everyday human problems. Is it really fair that if you have spent 40 years of your life with someone that they cannot come and visit you in the hospital on your death bed because they aren’t related? I think not. As for who will be the head of the household? I don’t think that really matters in the grand scheme of things does it? Regarding the generation of a human race–plenty of straight people choose not to have children. Some others are sterile. Old people can’t reproduce anymore. Those facts have not stopped us from allowing those people to marry, so why should it be valid here? Lastly, what happens to any couple when people get old? They eventually die.
mian shahid iqbal // Oct 28, 2006 at 6:26 am
hello mr antonio
thanx for commen on my views
the question is
if people in america and round the world are nterested in gay marrige just for economic benifits then the Governments of these countries should take steps to stop this illegal and non-ethical thing by ficilitating these people.
And u have said about that many a lot peple are in the world who dont want to get baby.
Bro,its a seperate thing but if the whole nation of a country or region stop getting babies then what will happen to this land.And the biggest social animal will walk towards its end.
what about this?
u have said that there are many people who have relations but when they admitted to hospital no one come to see them.its true, and i know it very well.but if visted any of those persons then u come to know that they even then have a hope for their relations.N u know ,haope is a main thing for a human life.what about MOTHERS DAY , FATHERS DAY.on these occasion there relation must see them even for a while.so ralations are main thing for a society dear?
what about it?
n about u said old eventually die
then dear remember ,every dying person wishes that his last ceremonies be ferformed by his dear ones.n only dear ones can pray for bleesing to GOd for him.just they can feel his death.NOBODY can feel it.
what about it.
its open debate , i m not against anything but i see the problems about legal status of gay marrige as well as social problems also .
so i think we have to change the mind of our people about this matter.and like antinorcotics department we should creat a department where we can treat these mindly diverted people.
thanx
waiting for ur comments now
mian shahid iqbal // Oct 28, 2006 at 6:31 am
sorry in my last two writings there are some spell mistakes
in some places “there” should be “their”if any grametical or spell mistake is behind then plz paradon me the readers of this column
thanx to all
Zach // Oct 28, 2006 at 5:47 pm
Honestly,
Marriage shouldn’t even be a government sponsered activity–this is an institution which grew out of religious practices: a union between a man and a woman with G-d as their witness.
As for gay people, they should strive for the same rights an opportunities–just not necessarily in the same name. I don’t think it matters whether or not you call it marriage so long as you receive the same benefits. Plus I think gay people should be focusing on other things at the moment (such as subtle discrimination…i.e. red cross).
And Mr. Iqbal, homosexuality is only a deviation in that it is simply the minority. It is not a “treatable offense,” its just like having black hair or blonde hair–and there is scientific backing that this is so. And as a lawyer you should know that religion has no place as a valid argument point.
James // Oct 29, 2006 at 11:07 am
Just because you are a faggot doesnt mean America loves faggots. Most of America are Christians, and most of Amercia hate your fahking homo freinds. Get the fashk out of this country and go live live in Bagdad.
Zach // Nov 3, 2006 at 2:42 pm
James,
I am SO glad that you are free to express your ad hominem arguments. Free speech is wonderful…and it’s even better with spell check. However, just because the majority of people in the United States are christian does not mean that christians can impose their views on the rest of the country. The constitution and government have “supposedly” been set up as above religious meddling (which we all know is now not true)–however, in a democracy we cannot live by mob rule and hence why we protect the minority (and thus the electoral college…lest we not forget the bill of rights…).
Also James, you might be interested in a study that was done on people who are particularly homophobic. They discovered that most of them have homosexual tendencies themselves. So welcome to the gay community my friend.
gabrille // Nov 6, 2006 at 1:55 pm
Antonio, could you elaborate on what you meant by alluding to the African Americans. Who is doing the proving and who is “them”
Antonio // Nov 6, 2006 at 3:04 pm
This is an entirely different blog entry in itself which is why I did not elaborate that sentence much more. You could go all the way back to the early days just after slavery when ligher skinned blacks that could pass for white did everything they could to try to “act” white, leaving the darker skinned ones behind, up to today when you have middle and upper class blacks that look down upon other blacks who may not have the same social status and accuse them of subscribing to the “gangsta lifestyle” or “thug lifestyle.” That isn’t to say that being middle or upper class is being “like them” or that growing up in a predominately black neighborhood and wearing baggy clothes equals “acting black,” but rather the problem comes from accusing those who do wear baggy clothes and the like from not doing enough to assimiliate. Sorry that probably is not as indepth explanation as you wanted, but hopefully that gives you some idea of where I was going with that.
gabrille // Nov 7, 2006 at 12:00 pm
I appreciate your attempt to clear up that statement. However, you are generalizing, which isn’t a very wise thing to do. SOME light skinned blacks did blend into white society, often because of pressure and to escape deplorable conditions that could barely be called living. Most of these “lighter skinned blacks” could hardly be called blacks seeing as how many were a combination of the two races or a majority of the one white. That can hardly be a representation of the African American community. As for as the ‘looking down’ in class systems, this is found in every cultural and racial group! In a area almost near our resident there is a large community of crumbling houses and unkept trailers with trash and debris everywhere. The poor and largely uneducated whites living there are termed ‘trailer trash’ and other degrading terms by other whites who feel that they are in an elevated condition which is really just a step away. From what I have observed many groups of people do not care for what they call a bad reflection of themselves or their cultural group. I think that we should look closer to home and try to make a difference there first before looking at the perceived failings of an entire group. I am not championing any particular race or group; I am simply trying to make a point that we should make accurate and intelligent statements if we are going to discuss equal rights and oppurtunities. I for one am totally for equal representation for everyone.
Antonio // Nov 7, 2006 at 12:37 pm
I am not setting out to castigate or put into a negative light the entire black community, nor the gay community, nor any other community. Of course these are general statements–I try to keep the blogs to six hundred words for one–but no statement ever applies to an entire group; there are always exceptions. The main point here is that people in the minority groups themselves generalize and castigate. Gays that think if they become more like straights by getting married and having childern they will be better integrated into society are obviously no different from blacks that tell other blacks to stop wearing baggy pants so that fit in better, nor whites that would tell their “trailer trash” friends to get dentures so that they can be accepted. None of that means that an entire culture has failed, but has rather inadvertently divided itself rather than trying to help everyone up at once.
James // Nov 11, 2006 at 8:23 pm
please don’t mistake me for the other james who posted here, I believe that what we call anything shoulden’t matter as long as we get the same treatment as everyone else, I would continue on this thought but I am at work.
gabrille // Nov 14, 2006 at 12:19 pm
I must say that this whole issue discussion saddens me. The prevalent rise of sodomy indicates the peak of debuachery and decline of society in general, and the eventual internal crumbling of that nation or empire. Do not take my word for it; study your history. It is not a treatable offense.
Antonio // Nov 15, 2006 at 6:23 am
What?
Paul // Nov 16, 2006 at 10:49 am
“If I’d lived in Roman times, I’d have lived in Rome. Where else? Today America is the Roman Empire and New York is Rome itself.”
Supposedly a Lennon quote. There are many people that don’t think that decadence leading to all manifest forms of debauchery and aggresively deviant forms of self-expression can crumble a society, but we shall see. It’s not good whatsoever to think that America is invincible from outside forces or from within. Decadence has several meanings. The below is from dictionary.reference.com:
1. the act or process of falling into an inferior condition or state; deterioration; decay: Some historians hold that the fall of Rome can be attributed to internal decadence.
2. moral degeneration or decay; turpitude.
3. unrestrained or excessive self-indulgence.
All three of those meanings seem to be increasing in our country. Excessive self-indulgence and moral decay is something that many of us believe can cause a further decay in society. I’m all for free decision, but that doesn’t make every decision good.
There are scientists who have tried to purport they have conclusive evidence that genetics are involved in sexual preference/orientation. However, they did studies that tried to link the fact that twins and brothers often shared genetics that promoted homosexuality or a “gay gene”.
“However, the most glaring observation is that clearly not 100% of the identical twins “inherited” homosexuality. If there was, in fact, a “gay gene,” then all of the identical twins should have reported a homosexual orientation. And yet, in nearly half of the twins studied, one brother was not homosexual. In a technical-comment letter in Science, Neil Risch and colleagues pointed out: “The biological brothers and adoptive brothers showed approximately the same rates. This latter observation suggests that there is no genetic component, but rather an environmental component shared in families” (1993, 262:2063). In fact, more adoptive brothers shared homosexuality than non-twin biological brothers. If there was a genetic factor, this result would be counter to the expected trend.”
The point is that the results of their studies and their conclusions are not compatible. The studies weighed evidence toward the exact opposite of their agenda to prove homosexuality is genetically handed down.
This was one group of scientists with an agenda. Other scientists who did the same test showed an even lower propensity of twins and brothers to indicate that homosexuality was caused by genetics.
Even the scientist, LeMay, who found a difference in the size of a nucleus between homosexual and heterosexual men doesn’t believe that this difference cleary indicates anything.
Here are a couple of quotes by the man himself:
“Further interpretation of the results of this study must be considered speculative. ”
“It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain. … Since I look at adult brains, we don’t know if the differences I found were there at birth or if they appeared later.”
These quotes are in no way taken out of context. We all must remember that when it comes to science, correlation is not causation. Just because a scientific study seems to prove a preconceived notion or an agenda or, vice versa, if a study seems to prove one false, doesn’t mean that there is conclusive evidence in any way.
My first possible notion is that since it has been proven that anxiety, depression, and psychological disorders occur at higher rates in homosexuals than heterosexuals(multiple studies have shown this true), then maybe one of those characteristics were prevalent in all of the people involved in the study that showed a difference in size of the nucleus. That may sound like a stretch to believe, but many things that are true in science were difficult ideas to swallow before the results became conclusive. Not to say, the above is my belief. It’s simply a possible theory to relate how easy it would be to create any theory whatsoever based on inconclusive evidence.
In a report of the Levay study, which has never been reproduced, there are reasons to think that
it was disease that caused the smaller nucleus.
“Additionally, of nineteen homosexual subjects used in the study, all had died of complications of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). AIDS has been shown to decrease testosterone levels, so it should be expected that those who suffered from that condition would have smaller INAH.” In other words, men who have AIDS have smaller testosterone levels which could account for a smaller nucleus.
The point is if you want to believe in what little evidence there is out there that could possibly indicate that homosexuality is a product of one’s genetics, then you will. You will believe because you want to believe. There is simply not enough evidence to back up these beliefs. Science has proven nothing. If you believe in it, then you have faith that science will prove it conclusively. This doesn’t mean that any scientist, politician, doctor, or otherwise would, or should, share the same view.
For now, I must believe it to be choice. And if it is a choice, then is it a good choice? If there are more psychological disorders within homosexuality, then is it a good path? Since it stumps procreation, is it a good path? Since, even with adoption, it creates a completely new, and possibly disjointed, environment, is it a good path? I think it’s better to have an actual male and female role model as authority over you as parents. Could children be missing out on something in their formative years? I don’t have an answer, but I do have a guess.
I would like to say that there are a lot of people out there who have a negative view of Christians. There are differences between those that act like Christ, and those that attend a Christian church and mark ‘Christian’ under religion on a census. While many Christians feel that homosexuality is a very bad choice, and it’s our choice to believe that, that doesn’t mean we necessarily feel like homosexuals are any less of a person than we are, or that homosexuals deserve Heaven any less than we do. That guy James, who said that “[homosexuals]… should live live in Baghdad” is illustrative of a nonsensical and hateful member of a Christian church or one who believes what the Bible has to say, but doesn’t follow the teachings in his actual life. The Bible states in 1 John 4:20, “If a man says, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?” To be a practicing, or actual, Christian, you can’t hate other people because of their opinions, or choices. You can see some opinions, or choices as harmful, but that’s as much freedom of choice as the person who is free to the have the opinion or make the choice.
I don’t enjoy seeing somebody like James trying to put in his two cents for all of us Christians, when he doesn’t even know what being a Christian is all about. To anyone who was offended, I extend an apology.
My last thing to say is that I can’t agree with gay marriage, if for no other reason, but that it is incomprehensible that any minority in any nation should be able to easily sway the minds of the majority into changing the legal definition of something as fundamental as marriage simply because they desire it to be changed. If the majority of the public disagrees with it, then accept it. No one is saying that you can’t be who you want to be, we’re just saying you don’t have the right to have a law made into effect just because you really want it. Seen the movie, Bruce Almighty, where Jim Carrey gets the omnipotent powers of God and then everything turns to chaos as he tries to answer every person’s prayers? If every change that every American citizen wanted made in government was made, we would have similar anarchy. I have no doubt that there will be gay marriage at least in a good number of states in the future, then because they can move to states that don’t allow it, they will have to institute a new federal law that allows it. Or something of that nature.
However, it is a sad day indeed when the desires of the few outweigh the desires of the many. It shows favoritism to the minority, which in turn, absolutely must show discrimination against the majority. Neither of which are right, fair, or equitable.
M B // Nov 17, 2006 at 4:19 pm
“… it is incomprehensible that any minority in any nation should be able to easily sway the minds of the majority into changing the legal definition of something as fundamental as marriage simply because they desire it to be changed.”
I know! I’m still angry about that whole American slavery thing, when a fringe minority blatantly changed the definition of a person, just because they FELT LIKE IT!
Scott // Nov 19, 2006 at 6:22 pm
Very well said M B.
I have a question for Paul:
What is the purpose of religion’s, specifically Christianity’s, apparent preoccupation with sexuality?
I feel that there are holes in your logic. You state that your religion is accepting of all and that “While many Christians feel that homosexuality is a very bad choice, and it’s our choice to believe that, that doesn’t mean we necessarily feel like homosexuals are any less of a person than we are, or that homosexuals deserve Heaven any less than we do.”
Do you not see how this is contradictory? You state that Marriage equality is undeserved yet you won’t commit to the sentiment that homosexuals are not worthy of heaven.
You cite tons and tons of scientific evidence to disprove the science you are ultimately contesting. Why? If you truly believe in the supposed teachings of Christ, compassion and “John 4:20, “If a man says, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?”” why even talk about sexuality at all?
Why do you spend so much time and energy writing long blog entries revolving around the debates of sexuality when your whole stance ultimately, is that Christians shouldn’t be concerned with it? Or as you state:
“To be a practicing, or actual, Christian, you can’t hate other people because of their opinions, or choices. You can see some opinions, or choices as harmful, but that’s as much freedom of choice as the person who is free to the have the opinion or make the choice.”
Do you see the holes in the logic? And lastly, how much exposure have you had or; what is the nature of your exposure to, homosexual people?
Do you think that the exposure that the average Christian person has to homosexual people is comparable or equal to the vice versa?
Scott // Nov 19, 2006 at 6:40 pm
I just thought of another question for Paul:
What are your thoughts about the concept of persecution? And if that seems a bit too strong of a sentiment, how about oppression? You acknowledged that Christians are the majority or, that at least the majority of people are against gay marriage. Doesn’t this hint toward oppression of homosexuals? If the majority have power and are inhibiting supposed rights of a particular group, doesn’t this imply oppression? (especially considering I haven’t really seen any evidence that allowing such rights to take hold would hinder the rights of others.) How does this compute in your mind when compared to the persecution of any group throughout history, including Christians? Again, a hole in your logic.
Sphynx // Nov 21, 2006 at 12:14 pm
What’s the point? What purpose is served by providing marriage to gay couples? Those are the questions that cause an erroneous train of thought. Logically, there’s not alot of point to heterosexuals getting married. It’s not about logic. The hard thing for any non-homosexual to understand is that it’s about love. Most gay-marriage proponents are not caring about the legal ramifications or bonuses from getting married. Once you simply allow marriage, they’re quite happy to be able to share a name or qualify for things ‘married’ couples more easily qualify for, like adoption.
When you take the time to realize the reasons a heterosexual couple want to get married, and apply those to a homosexual couple, you begin to realize the ‘purpose’ of a gay-marriage desire.
The question then becomes… what right does any ‘majority’ have to stop that? There’s 1 reason and 1 reason only to be against gay marriage, that’s because you just don’t like the idea. I don’t like the idea of the smell of fish, but as long as that act ofeating and cooking fish doesn’t interfere with me, what right would I have to prohibit it? People need to get over their ‘feelings’ on other people’s activities, quit trying to allocate a purely logical purpose behind those activities, and just accept people for who they are and who they want to be.
Paul // Nov 21, 2006 at 3:36 pm
Not everyone who is in love, gets married. There are even people who live their entire lives together without getting married. Marriage is a concept that has been around longer than all of the debates that fill the media airwaves. I just don’t see a purpose in it. To me, marriage was intended to be between a man and a woman. I do feel that a homosexual couple doesn’t fulfill what marriage was intended for: an institution, a structured environment, of love and trust between a man and a woman for them and their children as an example. It wasn’t intended for homosexuals. Whether it is or not, is for all citizens to decide. In addition, this has nothing to do with slavery. Marriage is an institution granted and slavery is an institution forced. Completely separate and ridiculously incomparable issues.
I will answer this one question of yours, Scott. Marriage was intended for two specific people of two specific genders. Heaven, as stated in the Bible, is intended for anyone and everyone who will believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and repent of their sins. They are also incomparable. I have had plenty of exposure and am not cynical towards or prejudice towards homosexuals nor do I hate any of them. I believe in Heaven and I would hope to see every one of them in Heaven, and a decision of sexuality won’t get them to Heaven, nor keep them from it. I do think that homosexuality is a sin, and a choice that does effect the world we live in in a bad way. I think lying is a sin, and stealing is a sin. I think they are all morally and ethically wrong things to do. I am not perfect and neither are they and this all has nothing to do with what I think of homosexuals and homosexuality. The hole in your line of thinking is that you don’t understand the whole issue. It’s about marriage, not homosexuality. Most of the people who disagree with gay marriage simply think that it is an oxymoron. Marriage means something that a man and a woman enters into. It’s just what I think it means. I have right to think it. I have to say it. I have a right to vote my thoughts into law. Just like you. If I minded my own business about marriage that would simply mean that I had nothing to say. But I do. As for everything else you said, it was all double speak. You tried to turn my words on me, but it didn’t make any sense.
Scott // Nov 21, 2006 at 10:04 pm
Paul, your words:
“I have had plenty of exposure and am not cynical towards or prejudice towards homosexuals.. ”
“I do think that homosexuality is a sin, and a choice that does effect the world we live in in a bad way.”
Contradiction.
You have every right to believe what you want to believe. But the instant you act on that belief in a way that enforces your belief against another individual (ie. voting against gay rights), when that belief goes against what your adversary believes, you are stepping away from mere opinion or belief and into oppression.
Period.
I have not turned your words around in any way. I read them and respond. If you think they are being taken out of context or misunderstood you need to reanalyze the way you communicate because your words are pure. There is no misreading a word. There is no body language to misinterpret.
I am completely open to hearing how what I say does not make sense to you or how it is “double speak”.
And why have you not answered all of my questions?
I am also very interested in hearing how you think homosexual behavior effects the world in a bad way.
Sphynx // Nov 22, 2006 at 3:38 am
Paul, your stand on gay-marriage falls into 5 words. “It just doesn’t feel right”. The logic that something isn’t “suppose to be” is faulty in many aspects, primarily because the entirety of human existance is filled with doing things that aren’t “suppose to be”, like rolling plants into paper and smoking them, or decaying fruits and grains into alcohol, or milk into yoghurt and cheese.
There’s only 1 reason to be against gay marriage. It just doesn’t feel right. Don’t give me the bible mumble jumbo. Sure, Leviticus 18 declares it a major sin, right after declaring the wearing of 2 materials at the same time (cotton and wool?) a sin of equal importance. Those laws are as outdated as the bible itself, and written by barbaric-like men in an age when morality was just being discovered.
I think Scott is quite right. You wish to Opprese others for the simple reason that ‘it doesn’t feel right’. That’s just wrong.
Ammi // Apr 16, 2007 at 2:48 pm
A community is created out of it’s need to gather together and support each other as an entity deemed “not normal” by the standards of the majorities in society. I don’t think that learning to speak English makes any of the minority racial groups any less committed to their heritage. Nor does being allowed to marry outside of your race make you less committed to that race. Just as being allowed to vote and working for equal rights as women does not make us less committed to womanly causes-once we get those rights we just keep working-because we are deserving of that equality. So why, then would granting the human right of marriage make someone any less committed to their gay community? We are trying to create equality and equality will never make us less diverse. Our lives will always be deemed “different” by any societal standard-regardless of the rights we are granted.
Because I may disagree with some of things that people say or do in regards to their own opinions of gay marriage it does not give me the right to infringe on their ability to express themselves as long as they are not acting violently. I simply wish the same respect in return. Who am I hurting by wanting to marry my partner? Who am I hurting by wanting to raise a family? Who am I hurting by wanting to raise children who are opened and honest and supportive of all people regardless of their differences?
Some may say the “Institute of Marriage”. But hasn’t the “Institute of Marriage” been completely broken down and made a joke out of in the last few decades? With stars being married over and over and the divorce rate climbing to more then half now? A marriage is now easy to obtain between heterosexual couples and it is easy to toss away like last nights garbage: it seems to me that is what it has been reduced to. How would it hurt anything to add a new branch to that of committed and loving gay couples who have worked so hard to be recognized in marriage that we see it as the majority of the public used to: an important and serious bond and commitment. We see it as the ultimate expression of our love and devotion. We see it as something we have worked very hard for and will not throw away like garbage-we will cherish it and treat it with the respect that it deserves.
Whether you agree with our lifestyle or not is not the question. The question is what would it really hurt? We are only gay in bed….in the rest of our lives we are normal everyday Americans who are Doctors and Lawyers and Teachers and Mothers and Fathers and Sisters and Brothers and we deserve to add HUSBANDS and WIVES to that those titles because we are no different then anyone else.
Bob // Feb 13, 2008 at 12:35 am
Only gay in bed?!! That is the problem, what a sick image in everyones’ head. Celebrities and other people in the spotlight do get married over and over again, but they don’t count. These celebrities that are like that are not even “real people,” so they do not count. Who looks up to any of those overpaid losers anyways? Not anyone who has half of a working brain. Gays do not deserve marriage rights or marriage. Common sense…period. IT IS NOT AN ISSUE OF OPINION…IT IS FACT….BLACK AND WHITE. It’s not right, and it will never be right! FACT! There is not any other way around it.
GAYS…ARE THEY BORN THAT WAY OR IS IT SOMETHING THEY PICK UP IN LIFE?
Simple answer (common sense): Many chose to be gay or pick up the lifestyle based on a number of different reasons. BUT, if they are born that way, it is COMMON SENSE that the brain they were born with has some crossed wires.
Scott // Feb 13, 2008 at 4:05 am
Fact: People like Bob are the cause and/or product of hatred, war, violence, bigotry, oppression, ignorance, fascism, zealotry, brainwashing seperatism, racism, homophobia, fear in general, closemindedness, tunnel vision, misogyny, intolerance, patriarchy, elitism… I’m sure there’s more.. feel free to add on if you come up with any.
Jamie // Feb 14, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Bob, why do you care what other people do? If a person wants to get married (Gay or Straight), why should anyone stop them. I don’t spend my days worring about what others do. To each there own! Different strokes for different folks! You should really put that negative energy into something more productive/positive.
Agreecunc // Sep 2, 2008 at 6:02 pm
wow
its very reasonable article.
Nice post.
realy gj
thank you
Ammi // Sep 2, 2008 at 7:02 pm
The truth is we all (as individuals) have some sort of behavior in our lives that is not acceptable to SOMEONE out there.
There are many “god loving, church going” heterosexual couples who do things in their private sexual lives that some would deem “inappropriate”-but, it is no ones business what they do in bed. And no one out there is so good they have the right to judge-NO ONE. There is a reason people like Gandhi and Mother Teresa are so revered in this world-they are rare….the rest of us are just doing our best to be good human beings and do what we think is right for us while being careful to “ do no harm”.
There are some amazing people who do great things in our society who (in their private lives) may drink, or swear or litter or eat meat or maybe they even hurt people,….take your pick. We can’t please everyone all the time. There will always be at least one person out there who doesn’t like something we do or say or wear. This is what makes our world a beautiful mosaic of individual pieces.
Some people’s words and opinions may offend me, the things they say may be painful: like people talking about MY loving relationship in a way that suggests it is some monsterous thing. My home-in which I am kind and compassionate, committed to one person and want the same things as ANY human being-monsterous? How could that be? How can love be wrong? Or when people threaten to take away my right to create a child out of love, or remove my ability to be able to visit my sick partner in a hospital-or when they say that just because my partner is biologically the same as me I don’t have a right to keep our house, or our children if she passes-these things blow my mind-they sadden my heart. The truth is, in this beautiful country of ours-we have the right to express those opinions freely. So while you may want to infringe on my rights as a human, as an American-to love who I love and have the same rights-I will be the bigger person and support your right to speak your hateful messages while I continue to fight for my equality. I will continue to send you loving blessings from my sinful, lesbian family and hope that one day, you can learn to love more freely and see that we are all in this life together whether we want to admit it or not.
Leave a Comment