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.
In my home island, Puerto Rico, homophobia is rampant, but the United States does not fall behind that much.
The arguments from people who do not want gay marriage to happen are basically related to religion. Here, I believe, state and religion are separate entities, and the constitution's current definition of marriage as a reason to oppose gay marriage is overwhelmingly vague, since it can be amended, it is not static.
Now there is something that worries me about people's "violent" opposition to gay marriage. Some people react as of this was a murder of an innocent person. Some people dare to compare homosexuality to some paraphilias, like pedophilia and zoophilia. I have even read people that say gays should die! Just what the heck is going on with some people? What is all this fear about? If you are not gay, then you are not gay. It's just as simple as that. While seeing two men or two women kissing could result weird today because it is not the norm to see it everyday (well at least in many parts of the world, maybe SF and Europe are exceptions), why would that bother you?
I am not gay and I support full rights for the LBGT community. I am sure of what I am. Are you?
I've never understood how some people believe gay marriage weakens heterosexual marriage. IMO, gay marriage doesn't weaken my marriage any more than the 50% of heterosexual marriages that end in divorce. My marriage is weak or strong based on the relationship my husband and I have nothing else. I fully support the right to marry regardless of the gender of the couple. If others fear gay marriage, they will need to explain why since I don't see an issue.
I was a 21-year-old college senior when the first stirrings of the gay-rights movement appeared in 1971. I didn't have a problem with what went on between consrnting adults then, and I don't now.
But when the first cases involving the legal status of same-sex unions arose (in Massachusetts, IIRC) nearly thirty years later, I could not help but notice that while both Local and national news media gave it very little attention, National Public Broadacsting immediately gve the story top billing, and continued to follow it with much greater interest than its competitors. That tells me that the effort to push the issue of same-sex unions to the front burner was both painstakingly planned and well-coordinated.
And again, while I have no problem whatsoever with how people define their personal and conjugal lives, it must be recognized that the instituion of traditional, heterosexual marriage was recognized and suported within the legal structure because it is expected to produce the single most important component of an established, self-perpetuating society --children. With some exceptions here and there, the advocates for same-sex-civil unions have litle concern for this point.
Regardless of our personal economic values, most of us recognize that for the vast majority, daily life is sustained, paycheck to paycheck, by a slender thread, and relatively few will progress from entry-level to a secure retirement without a few bumps in the road. The recognition of same-sex unions adds considerable stress to that social "safety net", and a large proportion of the expected beneficiairies are viewed by many of us as having skirted the self-deprivation and hard choices which often accompany family responsibilities in early adulthood.
As with the AIDS crisis, the embrace of the same-sex unions issue by some of the most outspoken and militiant segments of the LGBT community, and the behaviors by which they sometimes demonize, harrass, and display their deep contempt for those who espouse traditional values -- in short, their cry for a place much closer to the head of a long line -- is what has caused a great deal of the backlash they mistakenly characterize as simple bigotry.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 02-24-2013 at 10:05 AM..
And again, while I have no problem whatsoever with how people define their personal and conjugal lives, it must be recognized that the instituion of traditional, heterosexual marriage was recognized and suported within the legal structure because it is expected to produce the single most important component of an established, self-perpetuating society --children. With some exceptions here and there, the advocates for same-sex-civil unions have litle concern for this point.
I disagree that there are "some exceptions here and there" among the LGBT community about children. Most LGBT people I know are pretty family-oriented and want to adopt and raise children. So they cannot physically make a baby---so what? Plenty of LGBT couples would love to adopt and raise children that their hetero counterparts cannot (or do not want). But look at the big stink that follows when gay people want to adopt kids? It's like they're damned either way! I have no idea how many homeless children there are in the world, but I can damn well be sure that these kids would LOVE being welcomed into a loving LGBT family. So....nice try on the "children" aspect, but I am not buying it.
In my opinion, the same-sex marriage debate is about politics and nothing more. It's a voting issue and yet one more nasty tactic employed by politicians and their moneyed handlers to pit people against one another. As long as we' (the 99%) are all fighting amongst ourselves, the more the established power mongers (1%) running the world can get away with murder. When are the 99% EVER going to see this?
In my home island, Puerto Rico, homophobia is rampant, but the United States does not fall behind that much.
The arguments from people who do not want gay marriage to happen are basically related to religion. Here, I believe, state and religion are separate entities, and the constitution's current definition of marriage as a reason to oppose gay marriage is overwhelmingly vague, since it can be amended, it is not static.
Now there is something that worries me about people's "violent" opposition to gay marriage. Some people react as of this was a murder of an innocent person. Some people dare to compare homosexuality to some paraphilias, like pedophilia and zoophilia. I have even read people that say gays should die! Just what the heck is going on with some people? What is all this fear about? If you are not gay, then you are not gay. It's just as simple as that. While seeing two men or two women kissing could result weird today because it is not the norm to see it everyday (well at least in many parts of the world, maybe SF and Europe are exceptions), why would that bother you?
I am not gay and I support full rights for the LBGT community. I am sure of what I am. Are you?
Great post, with lots of thoughtful questions and observations.
I, too, am not gay. I am a heterosexual granny who also supports fair and equal rights for the LGBT community and was thrilled when marriage equality passed in my state (Washington) this past November.
I am also thrilled to be living in this time because I am here to witness the changes - so much for the better! - which are occurring and I am so happy that my granddaughters (and any other potential future grandchildren) will grow up and live in a country where same sex marriage will be the norm, rather than the ABnormal.
I believe most of the holdouts for the "traditional" marriage are those in my generation; based on what I see with my own kids and their friends, the younger generation sees much ado about nothing when it comes to marriage equality. My own now-22-year-old son said to me, way back when he was thirteen or so, "Why can't they just let them get married and be happy?"
I don't have any answers to your questions because I wonder the same things. I can only suggest that you look towards the future with the same optimism that I do. Same sex marriage is now legal in nine states and the District of Columbia; I suspect 2014 will bring more states into the fold (it will likely be on the ballot in Oregon and I would be surprised if it doesn't pass) and eventually the Supreme Court will make a favorable ruling as well (I hope).
Actually, I think that to separate church and state, like some other countries have, the USA should require a civil ceremony for ALL marriages and if you so desire a second, religious ceremony.
Why do you use that term to disparage anyone who disagrees with you?
I am not ----scared-- of multiple people entering into the same marriage.
I am not----scared---of relatives marrying either.
However, if our govt is going to sanction them under govt laws, I as a citizen have the right to express my opinion.
( I am not--scared-- of capital punishment, but I do state my opinion on it , also )
Why are you implying people are --- scared..?
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.
