Your Opinion on Marriage

[Fourmother]

I've been thinking about the institution of marriage since yesterday's controversial ruling in California. What does marriage mean to you? Do you think traditional marriage/family is threatened by gay or plural marriage? If so, how? How much do you think the government should be involved in regulating who should be allowed to marry? Do you see this as a federal, state and/or religious question matter?

[Mamagistra]

:lurk5:

[j.griff]

IMO, gay marriage is no real threat to heterosexual marriage, or family as we know it.

I think the only way the govt. should be involved in marriage between two consenting adults who are not relatives (;)), is to document the marriage- and if applicable later, to document a divorce.

[Scarlett]

As we all know what is legal is not always what is moral and well, there ya have it. I am 42 years old, and I am shocked beyond description by the morals (or lack of) I see today. Shocked I tell ya. Shocked. Almost to the point that it is laughable. Who would have thought it would have ever come to this? And then I feel like I must sound like one of those old fuddy duddys from when I was a kid. I guess it all comes down to this: Who gets to set the standard?

[Crissy]

I voted "I don't care."

 

The fact that homosexual couples want to commit their lives to one person *until death do they part* does not, in any way, affect my marriage.

[Mrs Mungo]

I think a same-sex couple makes less a joke of marriage than someone like Britney Spears. But that's just me.

 

I voted against plural marriage. I think it's just way too complicated from a legal standpoint.

[Crissy]

I guess it all comes down to this: Who gets to set the standard?

 

I think a church has the right to set standards for its members, but we Christians have no place dictating what non-Christians ought to be doing with their lives.

Until our churches are without sin, shouldn't we be concerned with our own behavior first?

[Phred]

Sigh... I really would prefer it if we could just keep our private lives private and so forth. But we can't. When we stand around the office and we say, "Hey, my wife and I took the kids to..." that's expressing a norm for us. Then the nice man next to me says, "Yeah, my hubby and I took the kids to..."

 

The day he can say that without getting a strange look or someone thinking that he's immoral or sick is the day we'll all be equal. Because you can't keep things private when you expect gay men and women to shut up and not say anything about their lives while straight people are able to talk about their weekends and evenings and whatever else.

 

Granting people the right to have their feelings legally recognized is so far from equal it's not even funny. It's just the paperwork. But it's a start.

 

Let me tell you a story. It's how I found out how I felt about all this. I found out that a guy I worked with was gay. I found out he was gay long after I decided he was a great guy and that I liked him and that we worked well together. One day I read a story about a few guys who went out on the town and, for fun, decided to beat up some gay guys. They got blasted, waited outside a bar... flirted with a guy until he made a pass at one of them. Then they beat him senseless and they "curbed" him. Now I didn't know what that was until I read about this but basically they put the guys mouth on the curb and kicked him in the back of the head. It knocked out all his upper teeth. Nice guys, huh?

 

The first thing I thought of was that I hoped is wasn't my friend from work. I realized that if I'd seen this happening I'd have fought to prevent it. And it was at that moment that homosexuals ceased to be different to me. They just became people... people who happened to love people of the same sex. It was also then that I realized that homosexuals couldn't keep their sex lives private. How? With creeps hunting them? The only way to ensure they never let slip that they were gay was to be straight. No... it was the intolerance of the idiots like those muggers that forced gays to come out and come out hard. It's exactly what Jefferson said about the intolerance of despots causing an uprising. Well, here you have the same thing. Push someone down hard enough and they have no choice but to fight back.

 

So while I'd love to live in a world where we could section off our private lives... it just ain't gonna happen. So I guess as long as all the parties to the marriage contract are consenting adults of the same species and none are too closely related... gentlemen, you may kiss the bride(s).

[Phred]

By the way... as far as the multiple thing goes... I really don't know how in the world that would work. Far too often it's an abusive situation as we've just seen in Texas. So if anyone can tell me how what I'm refusing to condemn might work I'm all ears.

 

Whooooo boy, what have I gotten myself into now?

[Deece in MN]

I don't understand the big deal with same-sex marriages. Really, is it hurting anyone?

I voted "I don't care" because, frankly, I don't. I know some gay people who are very nice and have better morals/values than some others I know who condemn those who are different.

As long as a person holds to the basic values of humankind, I have no problem with them. Now, if you want to talk about murderers or sex offenders or some such, that is another story.

[nukeswife]

I voted that I don't care as long as it's between consenting Adults. The key word being Adults. The only thing I don't like is seeing things where children are forced to marry.

 

I'm trying to find a way to phrase this without sounding snarky or mean, but I can't believe it was suggested that because someone thinks gay marriage or plural marriage is ok as long as it's between consenting adults is looked upon as immoral. I don't think it's fair for someone to say I have a lack of morals because I see nothing wrong with two men or two women being married if that's truly what they want to do.

 

I think it's truly unfair to judge someone, which may not be the intent but that's sure what it feels like, simply because of one thing you know about them.

[Mrs Mungo]

And I think Phred is right. I think you see it differently when it is personalized.

[Greta]

What does marriage mean to you?

 

To me personally, it just means two people committing to share their lives. But I also realize that to some people it can mean more than two people sharing their lives.

 

Do you think traditional marriage/family is threatened by gay or plural marriage?

 

Absolutely not. What others choose to do with their lives in no way affects my choices. I happen to be hetero and in a monogamous marriage. If the people around me were homosexual and/or in polygamous relationships and were given the right to marry, my relationship would not changed or threatened by that. Some of the people around me ARE homosexual, and others ARE in poly relationships. And it has never ever ever affected my relationship with my husband in any way shape or form. I can't imagine how that could possibly change if they were given the legal right to marriage or civil union.

 

In fact, as far as the US goes at least, the states that allow marriage and/or civil unions of gay couples have very low divorce rates compared to the states like the one where I grew up which tend to be all about "protecting the institution of marriage". So I just don't buy it.

 

How much do you think the government should be involved in regulating who should be allowed to marry?

 

Since right now the government allows marriage between hetero couples, and gives them special rights and privileges for being married, I think it should either be allowed across the board, or that marriage should not be recognized by the government across the board, and should instead be a personal or religious matter. The latter seems the far more problematic option to me, so I would advocate allowing various forms of marriage to all have the same legal status.

 

Do you see this as a federal, state and/or religious question matter?

 

As far as the government side of it, I think deciding it at the federal level probably makes more sense. My hubby and I were married in one state and moved to another, where our marriage was also legally recognized. It should, ideally, be that way for everyone. It doesn't make much sense to be able to be married in one place, and then have your marriage not recognized if you move to another place.

 

As far as the religious side of it, my religion openly accepts homosexuality. We tend to be much more worried when people hate each other than when they love each other.

[battlemaiden]

I think you cannot forget the children. I think children do best with both a mom and dad.

 

I think you can't find a country that has legalized homosexual marriage that hasn't eventually had a drastic decline in marriage period. Norway is great example. People just figure "why bother?", start co-habitation, and thecommitment everyone agrees is best loses traction. There are many studies to support this.

 

Finally, I think "live and let live" is a great theory, but we all have to live with the results- as a society- and it's not as kind and open and loving when the families falls apart.

 

Jo

 

And decent, kind people can disagree....

[nmoira]

What does marriage mean to you?

Not much outside legal ramifications. I married primarily for immigration purposes -- not to get into the States per se, but rather because that was the easiest way for DH and I to be able to live together after we'd decided to commit. If immigration hadn't been a concern, we probably would have married eventually for the tax benefits since I'm a homeschooling SAHM. Neither of us are religious and we've both seen so many failed marriages in our friend's parents growing up that the idea of "marriage" signifying an everlasting commitment doesn't hold.

 

Do you think traditional marriage/family is threatened by gay or plural marriage?

I can't imagine how it could be.

 

How much do you think the government should be involved in regulating who should be allowed to marry?

Yes and no. I think government has the right to set some ground rules, but that they should be applied equally no matter what one's sexual identity or orientation.

 

Do you see this as a federal, state and/or religious question matter?

I see it as a state matter. I do of course think that a church has a right to say who it will marry and under what circumstances, but since atheists can legally marry I don't think the larger question of legal marriage resides within a church.

[Karen sn]

I don't care what gay or straight or bi people do as long as it isn't with my man!

 

I trust a boyfriend more that a husband....that's just me myself and I... based on my own experiences. So I will not be getting married anytime in the near future, but support everyonelse's right to choose it for themselves.

[Crissy]

I think you cannot forget the children. I think children do best with both a mom and dad.

Aren't the majority of single-parented children in this country children of straight mothers and/or fathers?

 

I think you can't find a country that has legalized homosexual marriage that hasn't eventually had a drastic decline in marriage period. Norway is great example. People just figure "why bother?", start co-habitation, and thecommitment everyone agrees is best loses traction. There are many studies to support this.

 

What do the studies claim is the difference between children whose parents are married versus those who are committed but don't have the legal documents?

[Audrey]

IMO, if everyone involved is a consenting adult, it's no one else's business, and it certainly doesn't affect anyone else marriage.

 

The day they made same-sex marriage legal in my province made no difference to my marriage. I didn't wake up the next morning and say "Gee honey! I have this incredible urge to ditch you and marry me a woman!" :D

[Greta]

I think you cannot forget the children. I think children do best with both a mom and dad.

 

I agree that children are a critically important part of this equation. That's exactly why I believe that children of gays deserve to have two parents who are legally married to one another. There are practical concerns, like health insurance and such, which must be taken into account.

 

I know this absolutely wonderful amazing couple that does foster care. They take in kids who have been abused and neglected and give them a wonderful, loving, stable home. They take in the kids in the foster care system that no one else wants, that everyone has given up on. Recently they even had a child whose sibling was killed by the mother's boyfriend. They seem to have absolutely endless love, kindness, and patience for children. And they happen to be gay. But the abusive and neglectful parents from which these children have been taken, on the other hand, are straight! I don't think sexual orientation has any bearing on ability to parent effectively.

 

I have friends who grew up with a mother and father who couldn't stand each other. I suspect, from the scars it left them with, that this is immeasurably more traumatizing than growing up with two moms or two dads who love each other.

 

I think you can't find a country that has legalized homosexual marriage that hasn't eventually had a drastic decline in marriage period. Norway is great example. People just figure "why bother?", start co-habitation, and thecommitment everyone agrees is best loses traction. There are many studies to support this.

 

I guess I don't see it as a problem when people chose to live together without a commitment. But you're welcome to try to change my mind!!! ;)

 

And decent, kind people can disagree....

 

Absolutely. :001_smile:

[Kate CA]

I think you cannot forget the children. I think children do best with both a mom and dad.

 

 

I completely agree.

[JWSJ]

I don't care as long as all parties are consenting adults.

 

I'm curious about individuals who voted for this choice.

 

Suppose the consenting adults were related (family)?

 

Would that change things?

 

For example, in several European countries, consenting adults can get married even if family. Fathers can marry their adult daughters, etc.

 

Germany does not allow family to marry each other, but this law is being challenged by a brother and sister that want to marry. They already have 5 children together.

[Sixmeadows]

I happen to think that God has set up certain principles for us to follow(marriage between man and woman) and He has for a good reason. When we decide to follow our own desires it is not for our own good. It is harmful to us whether we acknowledge it or not.

 

Now to beat people up becasue they don't see things the way you might is awful. I am sad that this happens. Or to treat someone with unkindness is uncalled for. But our gay friends know where my husband and I stand, and why, but they also feel valued as a human being.

 

Just thought I would put up a different viewpoint.

 

Cheri

[Liza Q]

I almost voted for #2, but I decided on the last - because I just do not know what I think. At least, I think a lot of different things and they don't all fit together well!

 

I think that marriage between a man and a woman is the foundation of human life.

 

I think that the word marriage means what it means - and civil union means something different.

 

That my marriage is between God, my husband and me - a spiritual union, I guess - and the State has little to do with it. If (yes I know this is a stretch) someday our government were to declare all *patriarchal* marriages invalid (out of concern for the women who were victimized), I would be just as married as I ever was. Make sense?

 

That a gay couple should have the same options that my husband and I have when it comes to naming next of kin, insurance beneficiaries, child custody, etc. That is a legal issue and I think that this should be fixed - I just don't know how

 

That as a Christian (I can't speak for other povs) I see a difference between marriage and living together but not all people see things the way I do!

 

That there is a big difference between the Church and the State - different responsibilities.

[Trivium Academy]

My personal opinion is that same sex partners should have the same legal benefits under the law as married women/men and should be able to have a legal ceremony to bind themselves together leaving out all religious aspects. The union would legally be to protect their assets, their commitment and any religious aspects would be a personal matter.

 

I also believe that clergy should not be forced to "marry" same sex partners and that the church should not be forced to be involved in any way shape or form. If a clergy member willingly performs a ceremony for a same sex union, that should be that individual's (the clergy) decision not dictated by the government.

 

This is a hard subject, while I don't believe the government should interfere with a person's "pursuit of happiness", as a Christian, I believe this behavior is immoral and the government's acceptance of any type of union will promote the idea that the behavior is socially acceptable and should be allowed. It's a very troubling topic both morally, socially and legally.

[Quiver0f10]

I oppose same sex marriage as I believe marriage is from God and is between one man and one woman. However, I don't have a problem with same sex civil unions.

 

Civil unions would allow a same sex couple to have the same benefits of marriage such as life insurance, health insurance etc for their partner, without the marriage title part of it.

[Quiver0f10]

My personal opinion is that same sex partners should have the same legal benefits under the law as married women/men and should be able to have a legal ceremony to bind themselves together leaving out all religious aspects. The union would legally be to protect their assets, their commitment and any religious aspects would be a personal matter.

 

I also believe that clergy should not be forced to "marry" same sex partners and that the church should not be forced to be involved in any way shape or form. If a clergy member willingly performs a ceremony for a same sex union, that should be that individual's (the clergy) decision not dictated by the government.

 

This is a hard subject, while I don't believe the government should interfere with a person's "pursuit of happiness", as a Christian, I believe this behavior is immoral and the government's acceptance of any type of union will promote the idea that the behavior is socially acceptable and should be allowed. It's a very troubling topic both morally, socially and legally.

 

:iagree: I should have read this first as Jessica said it so much better than what I was trying too.

[Guest Amy in MS]

I'm a "born-again" Christian, and I voted "I don't care."

Granted, I think the polygamy would be dicey because it would be hard to divide property, and all of the legal rammifications that might come with death and possible divorce, but I have no moral issues with gay marriage and polygamy.

Amy

[Guest Amy in MS]

Hi Quiver,

"I oppose same sex marriage as I believe marriage is from God and is between one man and one woman. However, I don't have a problem with same sex civil unions.

 

This is totally how I used to feel on the issue. Then I realized, that, to me, it was a semantics issue. If gays have the same rights under "civil union" that are afforded in marriages what is the differences, in the eyes of people, other than the name?

 

 

Amy

[Jenny in Atl]

My dh has an aunt who is gay. She and her partner have been together for at least 35 years. Their relationship blows away so many heterosexual relationships I have seen. Dh's own parents only made it seven years before divorcing.

 

I can't fathom why they are not worthy of marriage.

[Scarlett]

Let me tell you a story. It's how I found out how I felt about all this. I found out that a guy I worked with was gay. I found out he was gay long after I decided he was a great guy and that I liked him and that we worked well together.

 

I have a story as well. I worked with a woman for about 10 years. She was well aware of my religious beliefs on homosexuality and I was fairly certain she and I agreed on that topic. One day we went to lunch together and she confided in me that her older brother was gay. She cried as she told me. She told me about how it had ripped the family's heart out and how her dad said to her, 'I'd give all I have to make him right.' My heart ached in sympathy for her, her parents, and yes even for her brother. I certainly did not have the urge to go beat him up. And yet---I did not suddenly feel that it must be ok to practice that sort of lifestyle. Wrong behavior is wrong behavior even if you like the wrong do-er.

 

So again we are back to 'Who gets to set the standard.' Apparently most who have responded to this thread pretty much think everyone should be allowed to set their own standard.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Hi Quiver,

"I oppose same sex marriage as I believe marriage is from God and is between one man and one woman. However, I don't have a problem with same sex civil unions.

 

This is totally how I used to feel on the issue. Then I realized, that, to me, it was a semantics issue. If gays have the same rights under "civil union" that are afforded in marriages what is the differences, in the eyes of people, other than the name?

 

I wonder... are people who are married without a preacher or a religious ceremony (or any consideration of religion at all) considered "married" by the folks in this thread who talk about "leaving out the religious part of it"? Or do they simply have a "civil union" in your eyes?

 

My parents were married by a justice of the peace, but I consider them married.

 

(And I'm not asking antagonistically. I've just never even considered that people wouldn't consider non-religious folks or people that don't consider marriage as ordained by a god "married." Or am I just totally reading this wrong?)

[Quiver0f10]

Hi Quiver,

"I oppose same sex marriage as I believe marriage is from God and is between one man and one woman. However, I don't have a problem with same sex civil unions.

 

This is totally how I used to feel on the issue. Then I realized, that, to me, it was a semantics issue. If gays have the same rights under "civil union" that are afforded in marriages what is the differences, in the eyes of people, other than the name?

 

 

Amy

 

In the eyes of the people nothing, there is no difference I guess. But to me, marriage is between GOD, my Dh and me. A civil union is a state issue and not a religious one.

[Mekanamom]

The day he can say that without getting a strange look or someone thinking that he's immoral or sick is the day we'll all be equal. Because you can't keep things private when you expect gay men and women to shut up and not say anything about their lives while straight people are able to talk about their weekends and evenings and whatever else.

 

Granting people the right to have their feelings legally recognized is so far from equal it's not even funny. It's just the paperwork. But it's a start.

 

 

 

I have not read all the posts on this subject... and I have a meeting I need to get ready for, so it will be a while before I can.

 

I just wanted to briefly say, I agree with you Phred, 100%.

 

I've had many gay coworkers, many gay friends, even lived with some gay housemates in college. They are just people guys, just like the rest of us. It doesn't hurt anybody for them to have loving relationships with people of the same sex. There is, IMO, nothing immoral or wrong about it. Nothing. at. all.

 

I was glad to see this ruling- it's a start, like you said, Phred. :)

[Quiver0f10]

I wonder... are people who are married without a preacher or a religious ceremony (or any consideration of religion at all) considered "married" by the folks in this thread who talk about "leaving out the religious part of it"? Or do they simply have a "civil union" in your eyes?

 

My parents were married by a justice of the peace, but I consider them married.

 

(And I'm not asking antagonistically. I've just never even considered that people wouldn't consider non-religious folks or people that don't consider marriage as ordained by a god "married." Or am I just totally reading this wrong?)

 

 

Pam,

 

I never really thought of this and I will have to give it more thought before I could answer.

[Quiver0f10]

 

 

This thread title is 'Your Opinion on Marriage.' I gave my opinion. I figure on a public board asking for opinions, I should be allowed to offer my opinion.

 

 

:iagree: Had the title been 'Your Opinion on Civil Unions", my answer would have been totally different than the one I gave.

[Sixmeadows]

if it isn't wrong then what does it matter if their is a civil union or a marriage? If you believe it is wrong for same sex relationships then it seems to me that one would be against civil union or marriage.

 

It doesn't make sense to me to make it ok in certain situations but not in others??

 

maybe someone can enlighten me

 

Cheri

[Scarlett]

If you believe it is wrong for same sex relationships then it seems to me that one would be against civil union or marriage.

 

Cheri

 

I'm curious about this line of reasoning too.

[Melinda in VT]

I think the government standard should be the same regardless of sexual orientation. If people don't want the government to recognize gay marriages, then it shouldn't recognize heterosexual marriages either. We should go to legal civil unions for everyone. People can still get married in a church, synagogue, etc., but if they want legal recognition for their union, they would need to go to city hall, or wherever, and fill out the civil union paperwork.

 

Of course, I'm proud to belong to a Christian church that recognizes and performs gay marriages.

 

(Even though I voted for anything between consenting adults is fine, I do have some issues about how polygamy would work in terms of insurance, division of property, etc. And I frankly hadn't thought about siblings marrying.)

[nmoira]

In the eyes of the people nothing, there is no difference I guess. But to me, marriage is between GOD, my Dh and me. A civil union is a state issue and not a religious one.

But your religion isn't everyone's religion and not all religious people share your conception of God. I fully support the right of your church to choose not to conduct gay marriages, but I don't think means other churches shouldn't have that right.

 

On the flip side, DH and I were married by a judge and in the eyes of the law our marriage is as valid as yours.

[OnTheBrink]

I have a story as well. I worked with a woman for about 10 years. She was well aware of my religious beliefs on homosexuality and I was fairly certain she and I agreed on that topic. One day we went to lunch together and she confided in me that her older brother was gay. She cried as she told me. She told me about how it had ripped the family's heart out and how her dad said to her, 'I'd give all I have to make him right.' My heart ached in sympathy for her, her parents, and yes even for her brother. I certainly did not have the urge to go beat him up. And yet---I did not suddenly feel that it must be ok to practice that sort of lifestyle. Wrong behavior is wrong behavior even if you like the wrong do-er.

 

So again we are back to 'Who gets to set the standard.' Apparently most who have responded to this thread pretty much think everyone should be allowed to set their own standard.

 

Yeah, I have a story, too. I married a man who pretended to be straight (and did a darned good job of it, too), but was as gay as they come. We had a child. He couldn't keep his **** in his pants so I divorced him (at last count, it was about 11 men, but I'm sure there are more I don't know about). Torn up marriage, damaged child. Yeah, his homosexuality didn't hurt anyone. To each his own, right? Now he's "married" (pardon me while I puke) to some guy he found on the internet. Gay marriage doesn't threaten God-designed, heterosexual marriage; it MOCKS it, and to me, that's worse.

 

That's my experience. You can guess my opinion.

[Sahamamama]

and simply post this link to an excellent article written by someone who for years has been involved with men who engage in same-sex sex.

 

http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/socarides.html

 

For those who think that "they aren't hurting anyone," there is ample evidence that they are hurting themselves.

 

For those who wonder, "Why isn't gay good?" I hope this sheds some light.

 

Regardless of how many people we know who engage in same-sex sex, regardless of how "nice" they may be, there needs to be a firmer philosophical ground for either accepting or rejecting homosexual acts than just our anecdotal experiences.

 

On the one hand, yes, people who engage in same-sex sex are people who need to be loved. On the other hand, same-sex sex -- along with a host of other deeds -- is morally wrong. This is not to say that only one behavior is wrong, or worse than other behaviors -- just that what IS wrong, IS wrong. Same-sex sex is wrong.

[Julie Herbster]

Wrong behavior is wrong behavior even if you like the wrong do-er....<<snip>>....So again we are back to 'Who gets to set the standard.' Apparently most who have responded to this thread pretty much think everyone should be allowed to set their own standard.

I think you've made two valid observations here, Scarlett. It is difficult to have a conversation or discussion about "marriage" if that term remains undefined. So, who gets to define it? Who defined it in the first place? Only after answering these very basic questions can we answer "who gets to set the standard."

 

Those speaking from a post-modern viewpoint (truth is relative) will say that it doesn't matter--there is no "definition"; everyone should decide for themselves what is true and right; what is true/right for someone else may or may not be true/right for me. I should not argue that there is an absolute answer to this dilemma, because there really are no absolutes anyway. It's all good.

 

Those speaking from a Judeo-Christian/biblical perspective cannot allow this. They will say that God created and instituted marriage for the reasons found in Scripture (and they know what those are). Unlike the post-modernists, they have a definitive starting place, an absolute definition.

 

These two parties cannot rationally discuss this matter, because they are on two totally different wavelengths when it comes to the basic definition, let alone the ramifications of that basic definition.

 

Simplistic? Sure. I've left out a ton of people--for example, those Christians (and other religious adherents) who can somehow divorce the Biblical (or other holy writings) standard from day-to-day application. These people are IMO neither reasonable nor logical; they try to synthesize two mutually exclusive worldviews--philosophies that mix as well as oil and water.

 

There are a couple of groups that I'd be interested in hearing more from. One is the group who have asserted that, although it would be "immoral" for them to engage in same-sex marriage, they believe that it is all right for those who do not believe same-sex marriage to be immoral to go ahead and engage in it. What rationale is behind this opinion?

 

Another is the group who have stated that, although they are against "same-sex marriage," they are not against "civil unions." Could someone explain this idea?

[Sahamamama]

Yeah, I have a story, too. I married a man who pretended to be straight (and did a darned good job of it, too), but was as gay as they come. We had a child. He couldn't keep his **** in his pants so I divorced him (at last count, it was about 11 men, but I'm sure there are more I don't know about). Torn up marriage, damaged child. Yeah, his homosexuality didn't hurt anyone. To each his own, right? Now he's "married" (pardon me while I puke) to some guy he found on the internet. Gay marriage doesn't threaten God-designed, heterosexual marriage; it MOCKS it, and to me, that's worse.

 

That's my experience. You can guess my opinion.

 

Oh, Michella, my heart breaks for you and your child. I suppose I wrote what I did and feel the way I do, because for years my family and I were close, close friends with a woman whose husband also pretended to be straight. He went up to NYC and got into the gay scene, and that was the destruction of that family.

 

He died of AIDS many years ago. His wife, my sweet friend, Veryl, died of cancer several years later (stress, I think). His oldest daughter had a nervous breakdown and lived with an abusive drug addict for years before finally breaking out of that hell-hole. And his youngest daughter met a bum at a gas station, got pregnant, married him, and they lived like animals for a few years before he went out and got drunk and hung himself in the woods behind the bowling alley. She then got pregnant again, married another alcoholic, who ended up in a mental hospital. She is now raising her two children with the help of her recovering sister in NYC.

 

So... we, too, have a different perspective on how "they don't hurt anyone."

 

I am sorry for your pain. I remember Veryl sobbing. I can still see her, sitting on the beach, looking out over the ocean, wondering, "What happened to my life, my home, my marriage?" GAY IS NOT GOOD, PEOPLE. Wake up, and see the havoc.

[Scarlett]

These two parties cannot rationally discuss this matter, because they are on two totally different wavelengths when it comes to the basic definition, let alone the ramifications of that basic definition.

 

Simplistic? Sure. I've left out a ton of people--for example, those Christians (and other religious adherents) who can somehow divorce the Biblical (or other holy writings) standard from day-to-day application. These people are IMO neither reasonable nor logical; they try to synthesize two mutually exclusive worldviews--philosophies that mix as well as oil and water.

 

Well said.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Pam,

 

I never really thought of this and I will have to give it more thought before I could answer.

 

Just so you know, Jean, I'm not trying to push anyone who said or hinted at this to even have an articulated opinion about it. I just wondered if anyone thinks this way.

 

Sometimes it takes me months and years to form an opinion after an idea is planted in my head, so no rush. :-)

[Melinda in VT]

I sympathize with people whose families have broken up because one of the marriage partners is gay. But it seems to me that the cause of the problem is not homosexual marriage but that the partner pretended to be straight.

[Scarlett]

I sympathize with people whose families have broken up because one of the marriage partners is gay. But it seems to me that the cause of the problem is not homosexual marriage but that the partner pretended to be straight.

 

OR, one could say the broken families were caused by one party ACTING on inappropriate feelings and wrong desires.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Oh, Michella, my heart breaks for you and your child. I suppose I wrote what I did and feel the way I do, because for years my family and I were close, close friends with a woman whose husband also pretended to be straight. He went up to NYC and got into the gay scene, and that was the destruction of that family.

 

He died of AIDS many years ago. His wife, my sweet friend, Veryl, died of cancer several years later (stress, I think). His oldest daughter had a nervous breakdown and lived with an abusive drug addict for years before finally breaking out of that hell-hole. And his youngest daughter met a bum at a gas station, got pregnant, married him, and they lived like animals for a few years before he went out and got drunk and hung himself in the woods behind the bowling alley. She then got pregnant again, married another alcoholic, who ended up in a mental hospital. She is now raising her two children with the help of her recovering sister in NYC.

 

So... we, too, have a different perspective on how "they don't hurt anyone."

 

I am sorry for your pain. I remember Veryl sobbing. I can still see her, sitting on the beach, looking out over the ocean, wondering, "What happened to my life, my home, my marriage?" GAY IS NOT GOOD, PEOPLE. Wake up, and see the havoc.

 

I adore Michelle, and I ache for her, too.

 

But what if gay marriage was not illegal? Would these men have left these lovely, innocent women alone and not felt compelled to live a lie and hurt people?

 

In our society, gay men [ETA: and women] have played straight for generations just to be marginally accepted by society, to not be disowned by families they adored and were adored by. If they didn't feel forced into living a lie, to making the desperate attempt to please their god and their fellow man by making "righteous" choices (marrying, procreating, attempting to pass, attempting to at least DO the "right" thing), would they be so hurtful?

 

How could the poor lady you wrote about -- how could she or her children have been possibly hurt by this man had he not married HER? It's not gay marriage that messes things up. It's the marginalizing of people who are homosexual and their attempts to "cure" themselves by entering into "hetero" marriage (which it isn't -- *that* is a mockery) with a heterosexual partner, usually by deceit.

 

If I were pressured relentlessly by society to "marry" a woman or have sexual relations with a woman, I would have issues as well. I don't think I could manage to hold it together. Much as I might try to hide so I didn't hurt the person/partner I was likely fond of, I would probably be vulnerable to the advances of men. I'm just that way. I *might* not act on them. But then again, I can't say.

[Trivium Academy]

I can't fathom why they are not worthy of marriage.

 

I hope you didn't derive from my comments that I feel homosexuals are not worthy or are any less entitled to be happy.

 

We could have a very long, lengthy, in-depth discussion about the principles of our country, where they come from and how they were formed. I'm all about upholding the Constitution.

 

Personally though, as a Christian, homosexual practice is immoral and therefore not something *I* will participate in or promote to my children as a healthy lifestyle. I cannot control others' actions or beliefs and I wouldn't want to, we are each accountable for ourselves and our actions.

 

The majority of the population of the US are Christians and will vote accordingly to their personal beliefs. Religion plays a factor here which makes it a very difficult issue. When I enter into a voting booth, I vote based on my beliefs and what I feel is right- I don't think about Steve and Tom's strong relationship or Jane and Joan's lifetime commitment to each other- I vote to voice my opinion which is based on my beliefs of right and wrong.

[Melinda in VT]

OR, one could say the broken families were caused by one party ACTING on inappropriate feelings and wrong desires.

 

Hmm, yes. I should have clarified.

 

I do not condone cheating on one's spouse.

 

However, I do not see the fact that some gay men married women and then cheated on them to be an argument against gay marriage. In fact, I think as society becomes more accepting of gay marriage, gay men will not feel pressured to pretend to be heterosexual, which should result in fewer marriages being damaged due to gay issues, not more.