Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I grew up with parents that did not agree with same sex marriages. I didn't have a true opinion on it, until I was older, and by that time I discovered I was bisexual, so obviously I was for same-sex marriages. Like others I think it's wrong for anyone to stop a group from getting married simply because they don't agree or it's against their beliefs.
I guess mine come from core beleif that mnarriage is a institutio that involves a man and woamn. I often wander where homosexual get their belief they have a automatic right to marriage which is in law of man than majority creates.
When I was in high school (class of '74) there were several 'obvious' gay men in school, but they were certainly not open about it. I, and my circle of friends, did not really care. We were more scandalized by the twin girls (age 16) who both became pregnant at about the same time. In those days to have a child 'out of wedlock' was still socially unacceptable.
In college, in 1976, my dorm roommate was gay. It took him a while to open up to me and others (for half a year he would date women), but he finally admitted what, again, was rather obvious. He (George) was very pleased that I did not care. I recall that during that period of history the cry of the gay community was pretty much "leave us alone": i.e., we still had people being arrested for engaging in homosexual acts, even in the privacy of their own homes. I was one of those who decided that what people did in the privacy of their own homes was not anyone's business.
The question of gays being able to 'marry' was not even an issue back in the 1970s, so far as I could recall. Geroge certainly never spoke about it as a dream.
I became a bit more concerned about gay rights in the 1980s when the AIDS epidemic was gathering steam, as was the fear of of AIDS. While in law school I became more convinced that the rights enjoyed by heterosexual people (like visiting their 'significant other' in a hospital) should be extended to gays (in part because George had entered into a loving, stable relationship with another man; said man (I can't recall his name) developed AIDS, and George was at first denied entry to his hospital room because they were 'not related').
In 1985 I was practicing law in a small town in Texas. One of my friends was a medical doctor, who told me that one of his patients was HIV positive. I was acting as counsel for the chamber of commerce for said town, and at one of the meetings the council members started talking about what could be done to keep gays, and AIDS, out of the town (in their mind, being gay and having AIDS was one and the same). I mentioned that there was already a person with HIV living in town, and he was not harming anyone. How the council members howled at me, demanding the man's name! I said "What are you going to do, run him out of town on a rail?". They were convinced that simply being HIV positive was a danger for the whole community; I told them they were being idiots, and soon thereafter resigned from the chamber (there were other reasons, all involving the bigotry of the council members towards gays and blacks).
Anyway, my experience with the rampant ignorance of those council members (and many people in the town) concerning gays and HIV/AIDS convinced me that whatever position they took in any matter whatsoever, was probably a wrong position, and I would take the opposite. Hence, I became even more convinced that gays should have equal rights.
But marriage? That issue frankly did not really come within my radar until the past ten years or so. Part of my evolution is thus: I came to believe that 'marriage' is a term that more appropriately belongs to religion. My sisters were all married by and in the Church, although, of course, they had to apply to the state for a license. For gays, I decided that 'civil union' was the more appropriate term.
A 'church' (Roman Catholic, Baptist, what have you) cannot, of course, be ordered by the government to allow gay people to 'marry' within said church. If a church wishes to sanction gay marriage, then the term 'marriage' is then appropriate (I believe a section of the Episcopal church now allows gay marriage within the church).
However, I decided that I was fully for gays being allowed to enter into 'civil unions' (i.e., sanctioned by the State) with all of the same benefits of non-gay couples. I wish now that George and his partner (who died of AIDS back in the 1990s) could have enjoyed the benefits of a civil union (I did, back then, advise them that, while they cannot be 'married' and so the community property laws of Texas did not apply, they could each prepare a Will that accomplishes the same thing).
My 'civil union' with my wife (we are not members of any church) is still going very strong. Not for one instant have I thought that allowing gays to 'marry' (it is awkward to say 'to get civil unioned') in any way diminishes my own marriage.
Anyway, to sum up: back in the 1970s the issue of marriage was not even on the table; once it did become a topic, I quickly was for it.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,087,446 times
Reputation: 11862
Quote:
Originally Posted by tvdxer
1. How were your opinions about same-sex marriage and homosexuality in general originally formed?
2. When did you first think seriously about same-sex marriage?
3. If there was a change in your stance, when did it occur, and what provoked it?
1. I was raised in a Christian home and still consider myself a believer in Christ, sometimes by the barest of threads. But I've always been a bit of a free-thinker, never just 'toeing the party line.' Even if I tried to, a part of me would always have my own opinion on the matter. I'd say it was still an influence, though, although a bigger influence, I will say, was my more rationalist approach to the whole topic. I'm definitely all for people having rights, but if they truly do not affect others. While gay marriage doesn't have a direct impact on my life, I can see how gay rights can be extended at the expense of the right's of say children, just as a woman's right to abort takes away the right to life.
In short, this is how I see it. It's all about the definition to me, and what we're talking about. If we're talking about marriage as a LEGAL entity, then sure, gay couples should have all the same rights as straight couples, although I'm a bit ambivalent about gay adoption. Sure some hetero couples are worse, but the idea of hoards of gay or lesbian couples having surrogate or IVF children is sort of weird to me. It just doesn't seem natural. If you can't naturally pro-create a child, should you have one? Of course that argument would apply to couples who couldn't conceive naturally.etc and those who want to adopt. But also, I'm actually don't believe homosexuality is 100% genetic (largely, maybe), I still think upbringing, ESPECIALLY when it comes to lesbians, has something to do with it. I'm not convinced gay parents don't always influence their children's ideas of sexuality. Actually it's tricky when it comes to children as it opens up a potential legal can of worms. But to get back on topic, as a civil entity, sure, homosexuals should be allowed to 'marry.'
Now if you define marriage as a religious institution, a union between a man and a woman in the eyes of God, that is your business and nobody else's. These couples should not force people to ACKNOWLEDGE they are married if that person refuses to. It doesn't make that person hateful or bigoted, it's purely their opinion. Some may still think gay marriage is a joke. And no, no church denomination should be pressured to marry gays. Not the Catholic church or anyone else. I believe the whole hubub about them not being with the time is BS. If they want to be faithful to scripture, they are not going to compromise on it. In conclusion, if you're married under the law and you consider yourself married, that's all there is to it.
For me, personally, I don't see gay marriage itself as a threat to society or marriage. If anything, straight people have 'cheapened' marriage, with the high divorce rate and all those phony celebrity weddings. For me, marriage is just a fancy wedding and a certificate. The commitment to each other is what matters. If I were gay i don't think I'd feel a great need to marry, but hey, if that's what they want.
2. I think I only heard it discussed a lot in the last 10 years. It's not legal here in Australia, but I do remember it was a big deal when like Canada and Mass legislated it. I was actually in NY during the gay pride parade last year and they were celebrating the decision.
3. I've never felt that strongly about gay marriage, really, but I can't say my views have altered that much over the years.
Would not making murder, stealing or sexual abuse a crime be 'legislating' morality?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose
No that would be legislating activities that harm others.
I have to agree with Trimac20 on this one. It is legislating morality because even the idea that one should not harm others without good reason (though certainly agreeable) is a subjective, personal value. It's a moral belief; it just happens to be the most popular.
Because I, like the founding fathers, believe that legislating morality is a terrible thing.
Marriage shouldn't be acknowledged by the federal goverment in any way.
Agreed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
