16
Nov
2008
Personally, I don’t believe in Same Sex Marriages. I grew up in a society where I learned that a marriage is between a man and women. But that same society taught me that everyone has the legal right to be happy.
Gays like everyone else; they’re just looking to be happy.Everyone deserves the same chance at permanence and happiness. Just think of this way – what if someone is now telling you that you cannot get married.
I think everyone should watch this video, and then share their views on gay marriage in the comments.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Good day Chris,
I am glad to see your willingness to spread this message of love and equality. I do not consider myself to be better or worse than my fellow man and as such I am not entitled to more or less rights than anyone else. While you may not agree with the choice of the partners, in much the same way that your son or daughter may choose a partner you do not agree with, that still does negate their right to choose their partner.
Suki K Tranqille
I agree that everyone has a right to be happy.
But can someone define ” happiness ” accurately?
Does it mean in a quest for “happiness” one can do anything?
Has a man got the right to be “happy” by killing others?
Or can one only be “happy” when they do so within the confines of the happiness of others?
Man is not allowed to do whatever makes them “happy”
Where is the definition of “happiness” to be found? Isn’t there only one reference book that is defined as the truth?
More questions but only one answer ” the truth, the way and the life”
Humans have the right to happiness as long as it does not cause harm to another. That is a principle that I believe works.
SKT
It has nothing to do with religion, because religion is not based on fact.
It has to do with biology and culture, economics and health.
We have families for a purpose: To nurture children. Society benefits from that. Only two people of opposite sex can create a child. It makes sense to give the family certain societal and tax benefits.
I love my friends and my pets, but can’t marry them.
Homosexuality is a mental illness, pure and simple. Homosexuals, like alcoholics, should be treated with care and respect, but their practices do not deserve to be called healthy or natural.
I don’t care what laws are passed, I will never, ever, regard any marriage other than one mane to one woman as valid.
Of course Dan, this is an old argument so my response is not so much to you as it is food for thought for some of the other readers. Your words are in quotes, my response appears below.
“We have families for a purpose: To nurture children. Society benefits from that.”
I’m not sure why we assume that homosexuals can not nuture children and why society can not benefit from that.
“Only two people of opposite sex can create a child.”
While this is accurate, it does not make them automatically qualified to raise a child?
Often they don’t even raise the child together, should they be penalized for not fulfiling their societal purpose?
What happens when the two people decide not to raise the child and leave the duty to the rest of society?
“I don’t care what laws are passed, I will never, ever, regard any marriage other than one mane to one woman as valid.”
This is certainly your right - I have seen and read reports of many individuals who have said that it doesn’t matter that Barack Obama is our President, they will never accept a black man as President. I AM NOT calling you a racist, my point is that I respect your right to believe as you will, I only ask, as Keith does in the video, not to stand in the way.
SKT
Dan, I share your opinion that marriage should be between one man and one woman - but shouldn’t everyone have the legal right to marry anyone they choose.
Personally, I think there are much more worse things going on this earth that people are showing a blind eye too. Children are dying by the thousand in certain parts of the world from starvation.
To say homosexuality is a mental illness demonstrates how unread, and ill-informed u are.
Purhaps if we were more aware of the history of the origin of marriage as we know it, then we’d have a clearer understanding of the issue.
And then maybe understand the following:
1. What are the clear benefits of marriage for a homosexual couple. What are the motivations?
2. Outside of marriage, are there any legal rights granted to a homosexual couple?
3. Is it getting married that is the problem, or gettin married in a church?
These may in fact be valid questions and being aware of the history of marriage can prove helpful. I wonder though if the history of a subject is really a valid method of understanding the issue. Perhaps we can review the history of interracial marriage as a point of reference. As it has been mentioned in the past, there was a time when black and white people in the United States could not marry. During that time could it not be asked -
1. What are the clear benefits of marriage for an interracial couple. What are the motivations?
2. Outside of marriage, are there any legal rights granted to an interracial couple?
3. Is getting married the problem or getting married in a church?
I suspect that we would find those questions to be offensive. It has been said that interracial marriage has the negative impact of destroying the white race. Prohibiting interracial marriage was a way to preserve the race - reasons most people reject. The reasons for this current prohibition are based on fear of the unknown - again you don’t have to like it, understand or choose to practice this lifestyle - just don’t stand in the way.
SKT
Suki, want to look at the US history of marriage? Consider the turmoil and bloodshed over original Mormon plural marriage. Anti miscegenation laws were wrong because they were based on what healthy people may quite naturally be — members of different races. That is not the same as a law mandating only opposite-sex marriage, because homosexuality is neither healthy nor natural.
Chris, I wrote about biological ability. Many people aren’t good at doing things that they can get themselves into. What if I choose to marry my mother? My sister? My brother? My child? My dog? A 4-year-old? No! The state and society have the right to create standards for marriage in order to promote health and welfare and economic equity.
I also want to state that the video is an appeal to emotion, not to reason.
Venus: I don’t think churches should matter. Marriage should be a civil matter between the couple and the state. If they want some religious rite, that’s their business. Ask yourself what would happen if a “church” validates a marriage that the state does not sanction. The homosexuals also say that no marriage rights leaves them in the cold re medical visits and estates, but anyone can get around that (and even exclude a spouse) with a medical proxy, a living will, and a last will.
Interesting about race and marriage: Look no further than Dominica. A Carib man can marry outside the tribe and settle in Carib territory with the woman, but a Carib woman who marries a non-Carib man must move out.
“Anti miscegenation laws were wrong because they were based on what healthy people may quite naturally be — members of different races. That is not the same as a law mandating only opposite-sex marriage, because homosexuality is neither healthy nor natural.”
I understand that you believe homosexuality is neither healthy nor natural so I must wonder if this “principle” applies to all “unhealthy” people. Should people with HIV not be allowed to marry? Should people diagnosed with schizophrenia not be allowed to marry? Where do we draw the line and who is qualified to do so? What about women who are barren? Or men with low sperm counts? Since they are unable to reproduce, what is the value in their ability to marry? Surely, that is not “natural” or “healthy”. What about dwarfs? What about people diagnosed as having “special needs”? It would seem as though if we are going to have a principle that states people who are neither “healthy” nor “natural” should not marry, it should apply to all who fit into that category. If not, then this is simply discrimination against one particular group of people based not on principle but prejudice.
SKT
Ignorance is not bliss. Homosxuals are choosing to marry for the same reason that heterosexuals marry because they have found someone that hey love and care for and want to give the individual financial security. Would u like your son or daughter to be married to someone who is gay or lesbian if your son or daughter was not gay or Lesbian?
Here is an example of how silly religion looks when it discusses this subject. Ler’s keep it rational, please.
http://gawker.com/5090339/prince-says-god-against-homosexuality
I did not write that unhealthy people shouldn’t marry. I did write that a state should not sanction marriages based on an unhealthy premise. There is quite a distinction.
I am not sure who brought religion into the subject but I do not subscribe to any religion. My comments are not filtered through a prism of religious text but rather through my worldview of a principled life.
SKT
I am a doctor specializing in secondary brain constellations. Homosexuality is only caused by territorial loss conflict directed by the cerebral cortical brain layer usually from losing a sexual partner to a more dominant mate. It is observed in nature as well as humans. It is not a mental illness, but a “second-wolf phenomenon” that is triggered when male pack leaders lose dominance. They become homosexual biologically to protect the life of the animal, as the more dominant male will kill the weaker, now homosexual male. That is why gay men are so feminine.
Is your conclusion therefore that to be biologically homosexual is normal?
SKT
That would not account for homosexuals wanting to mate with each other. would it?
Dan.. Suki. I like that this has not yet become derrogatory. I’m liking this. Any ways.. Suki, I did not find your rephrase of the questions i posed offensive at all. I find them quite sensible. Perhaps we should try to answer them and see whether the answers for either group of questions remains the same.
Dan, it is true, from what i know, Marriage started as a civil matter, to regulate proreation, prevent polluting the gene pool, and to control dories/ wills/ land ownerships ect. Then in the 15th / 16th century, the church found that it was in the best interest of it’s parishioners/ congregation to make sure that the marriages were with non relatives, ensuring that the risk of having birth defects was reduced and to reduce the occurence of illicit marriages ect.
It that was the motivation for marriages to begin with, has it since changed? Love was never the initial motivating factor for the establishment of marriages. It is however desirable that you marry the person you love.
In that context, again, perhaps we should try to answer the questions.
I have to agree Venus, that I too am glad that this has not become derogatory and hold out hope that it will not become so. That being said, what makes the questions offensive (in the context of interracial marriage) are the lack of principles behind the questions. Principles are defined as, a comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption. In the case of race, they (those who opposed interracial marriage) single out a difference in people that is not biologically significant, can not be considered a fundamental law or doctrine and therefore can not serve as a rational reason for its limitation.
If one of the principles behind marriage is to be able to procreate in an orderly fashion to produce the most viable offspring (the reason for the ban on marrying relatives) then a biologically insignificant factor like race should have been seen by a rational public as an irrational limitation of the marriage participants rights. However, we NOW see that it was an irrational limitation but some for a significant period of time could not apply the situation to the principle to see that banning interracial marriage did not make sense.
When we discuss a topic like homosexual marriage, it is useful, as you mentioned to review the original principles that brought about the institution of marriage. As you mentioned, one of the principles was to regulate procreation. This principle in our current society has been taken over in large part by the state (by that I mean our various countries) as well as by science. The state will regulate adoption, abortion, programs for children with special needs and foster care. Science now regularly tests a pregnant mother for a variety of genetic defects to determine the viability of the child. Finally our society has made the single mother into a hero and the absent father into a demon making procreation and marriage two separate subjects. It would seem to me that this original intent, while necessary and admiral for its time does not apply as well today. Procreation is not a necessary component of marriage because as we all know, all heterosexual couples can not procreate. You mention the regulation of procreation not the mandating of procreation because mandating procreation is of course not biologically possible. With homosexual couples, there is no need to regulate their procreation because they can not reproduce.
The second principle you mention is “control dowries/ wills/ land ownerships etc. “, a principle which continues to apply today. Instead of dowries you might be more concerned with Health Care Proxies for example. One might say that you can give homosexual couples all of those rights without them having to marry. I would say, that since I have not yet been presented with a biological genetic risk homosexual couples have that would be at odds with the original intent behind the creation of the institution of marriage, why not let homosexuals marry, without creating a separate system of laws, that effective render them and their relationships to the second class?
The motivation for marriage has not changed, only the participants have.
SKT
Its amazing how so many will choose to judge people with their so called unsubstaniated scientific data or their claims that a person is mentally ill. I’m a catholic and my religion doesn’t support gays and abortions. That certainly will not prevent me from respecting the rights of everyone. The fact of the matter is a man and woman can no longer be considered the right type of combination to create a loving home and also raise wonderful kids. Look at the rate of divorces and the cases of bad ass kids coming from what suppose to be stable and loving homes with a man and a woman. I live in ATlanta Georgia, the gay city of the south as they say and I work in a neighbour predominant with gays. I see their families look as normal maybe even better than the regualr straight couple. They provide lovin homes and have the same ambitions that you all have. As for the bible and some of its hatred towards gays well let me say that even if I’m a christian, I to understand that the bible was written by man detailing the life of the divine and his words, but even saying that the bible can be edited because like I said, it was infact written by the prohphets. If God is all loving, knowing and caring I chose to believe that the hate spread in certain parts of the bible isn’t correct and was infact manipulated to suit that of mans needs. I believe in relgion and I certainly believe in God. My religion is no innocent group, catholicism have years of hate within it, primary example were the “Crusades”, do I ignore that? No I do not. But I won’t let certain things influence my decision about people and the way they live their life. I have friends who are atheists and they are very respectful of my relgion as I am of their beliefs, so have some class and live these people with their dignity! Thats piece
I wanted to contribute to this discussion, being that I was recently in the Caribbean and dealt with this issue on a very personal level. My partner and I were married in California in September and chose to have a celebration with our friends and family on the Island of Antigua. Both our families came from long distances (USA, UK, Switzerland, etc.) to have a party on the beach and celebrate being together. We knew ahead of time that same sex marriage was NOT possible in Antigua. We did not want to have any sort of legal ceremony on the island, as we had already been LEGALLY married back home. We simply wanted to share a party on the beach with our families; complete with a lobster bar-b-q and steel drum band.
On the day of our event, the police were “tipped off” at 12 noon that our party would be happening at 4pm. The police waited for over 4 hours to confront us on the beach and make their presence known (8 officers total). We were forced off the beach with no explanation of what was happening and taken to some back alley in St. Johns. We were directed into a small room and were surrounded by men who never showed any identification, nor were they dressed in any police uniforms. We were held for over 4 hours - without being able to call a lawyer or the American Consulate. In that time we were threatened, intimidated and told that we would be thrown in jail until they could “come up with charges.” Let me repeat again: we were NOT getting married on the beach that day. We committed NO crime and broke NO laws. We had never filed for a marriage license, and we did not have a legal representative/officiant there. We simply planned for a party on the beach.
Now, say what you will about gay marriage… everyone has their own opinion. It is a subject that has been debated for thousands of years… and has been prevalent in human society for even longer. But we had come from overseas and brought many family members with us. Our intention was to celebrate being together as a family. Instead however, we were treated as criminals and dragged off a beach.
The Caribbean islands thrive on tourism dollars. Is this how tourists are treated?? I see how the Mullany’s were treated… by being shot and killed in a robbery gone wrong. While it took the Antiguan police over 45 minutes to arrive to that horrific murder scene, they laid in wait for over 4 hours to brutishly take two white women off a beach and away from their family. Please explain how this is possible?? What a joke.
I for one am looking forward to a world without hatred, bigotry and intolerance. I know it can be achieved. It’s time to start focusing on the real issues that plague our society. Two people who are in love and want to commit their lives to one another is hardly a travesty. Instead of preventing people from getting married, why don’t we try to prevent divorce - as that is what rips families apart and breaks down societies.
That is sad but you europeans for-fathers did too good a job on my caribbean fore-fatherin brainwashing and bigotry, so while i detest what happened to you, and find it illogical and distatefull, i have to saywhat we sow we reap. Now we must ensure the new generations are more accepting of people, an stop all that religious dogma and teach the love of Jesus towards all not some all humanity.
Rape is Rape within marriage or out. If a woman does not consent it is rape. When a woaman says no it should mean No. A lot of our laws need to be revised. The law of mothers not being able to name the father of the child. Now that is a retrogressive law. That should be revisisted. If the father denies then let him pay for a DNA, but women whould name the father of their child.