For some people, marriage between two people of the same sex insults their sensibilities. (and that is putting it mildly!) It is religiously wrong, because they have some document that proves that it is wrong. It trumps their sense of right and wrong. All the implications that can be thought of for why this should not be, they will find it!
There are so many boxes that have been created in our lives. Everything we do and all that we represent fits in those boxes. You can't be a cirle and fit in a square box, that doesn't work. You're going against the grain, against all that is natural, known and dare I say holy? In essense homosexuals do not fit the roles or the boxes that we have created in this life! Not in our lifetime, not in our backyards!
Am I being immoral because I have no objections to people of the same sex marrying each other? Some people do think that, I have no doubt about that. Same sex marriage is not an abomination of marriage in general, or against God as some like to quote. Same sex marriage does not make my own heterosexual marriage unimportant or less than what it is. What matters fundamentally is the right of each individual to choose the path that is their God-given right to do.
Although the legal papers now says that these people have the right to marry whomever they choose, they still do not have the legal rights, all the rights that a man and a woman in a marriage do. They won't be able to file taxes together, they won't be able to get all the benefits that a man and a woman in a marriage can from the government, if they need it, because although the law says they are allowed to marry, they are still not equal or legal in every aspects of their lives.
The article I have linked above, written by John Cloud, defines and clarify some of the things the California rulings does or does not do with the confusion to many about Gay marriage.
Marriage between homosexuals doesn't take away our rights as heterosexual individuals just because two men or two women seek to marry each other, but those who object gladly seek to take away what is a fundamental right of each person, their freedom!
Do you even realise how patronising this statement is?
Listen, first of all, I would prefer it if you didn't address me like I'm a child. Again, I don't understand why you have to be so patronising.
I was also an adult in the 80s. Australia was one of the first nations to not only recognise the seriousness of AIDS but to actually do something about it. Australia's campaign to educate everyone about AIDS was well known and received publicity right around the world. One of the big points was to make sure we all knew AIDS was not restricted to the gay community, even though it seemed as though, at the time, it was this community affected the most by it.
'Then' being the operative word. Most of us since 'then' have learnt this is not true. The reality is the root cause of the spread of AIDS is still not known and this includes the belief it had its origins in the gay community.
Hi Phoenix! Nice to see you and thanks for your two cents!
This is good! Why else would they want to marry if not to be faithful to each other!
The courts became involved because they had no choice but to be involved. These people were banned from marrying each other, even when they wanted to have their commitment ceremony away from the church. It was AGAINST the LAWs of practically all cities for them to do that! They were denied their rights to choose freely, can you blame them for demancing that the ban be lifted? How would you like it if your right to whorship was banned, or to run in races or do what you take so much pride in doing? Basically the same thing! The sexuality of Gays is what is used against them.
Great points!
Because they are not taught about the differences in people, they learn nothing, and they grow with the same fears and ignorance as is prevalent in today's society. And they also learn to experiment and explore because that is the only way they are going to find out for themselves, instead of from mom and/or dad at home, with tolerance to give their views, answer the questions and say why you do or do not agree with it. Although, I must say that many of the younger generation are a lot smarter than their parent's generation were!
Which is also what is stated from the statement KFC posted!
Yeah, JU's wonkiness didn't eat my previous response!
Laws are based on morals. If nobody had the "right" to "impose" their morals, there would be no law. Ans, my morals are far from being unique. And, if they aren't, then I fear for my daughter's future in this world.
Oh, by the way, as for your early arguments about health insurance, that really doesn't make a lot of sense either. A company that already has openly gay working for it already has health insurance rates as set by the insurance company, so how exactly would that change is an already employed and insured gay were to get married?
How does it alter my rights? It alters my rights to have marriage maintain marriage and not just a union of two people who want to be bound together. It alters my rights to teach my child the sanctity of a bond between man and wife.
For the health care issue, with all due respect, you don't understand how insurance rates work. Insurances base a rate on how many men and women are employed. It does NOT provision for gay employees, and it is illegal to ask a person if they are gay. Now, if gay people can be "married", laws will change. they will be able to ask if you are married to a man or woman for insurance underwriting. They will then know if you are gay or not. This will raise not only base rates (since being gay can now be a factor in the actuary behind the base rate) but will also cause group rates to increase due to somebody simply being gay.
To be clear- "gay" is not something that is underwritten. So, yes, it will cause everyone's base rates to go up once it can be recognized, and it will cause group rates to go up if you employ a gay person. Say 5% of all men are gay. The insurance will now assume that 5% of every man employed is gay. They will raise everyone's base rate due to that.
ECCENTRIC Gambian President Yahya Jammeh has threatened to behead gays unless they leave the country, according to reports.
"The Gambia is a country of believers ... sinful and immoral practices (such) as homosexuality will not be tolerated in this country," the president told a crowd at a political rally on May 15, local journalists said today.
He went on to say he would "cut off the head" of any gay person caught in The Gambia.
The anti-gay campaign continued in the Gambian pro-government media this week with the Daily Observer publishing a virulent editorial.
"We have said it before and we will say it again. This is a Muslim and Christian country. Both the Koran and the holy Bible condemn homosexuality - pure and simple," the paper wrote on Monday.
and I would venture to guess that most genuine Christians feel much the same way I do. It might be hard to understand but our disagreement or admonition or what have you is motivated by love not hate. We love you too much to leave you in your sin of homosexuality and it would be no different for us if we were talking about drinking or gambling.
I don't know how you can make this statement when most of the websites point out that researchers are still trying to figure out where AIDS originated. The case you're referring to was the first in America. There were other cases of GRID reported in other countries prior to the initial case in America. Calling it a 'gay' disease doesn't cut it.
KFC,
S'okay and thank you. I was feeling very defensive at the time. I still don't agree with the assumption that AIDS is a gay disease, but I guess we have our own ways of looking at this, don't we?
You are missing something here- you CAN'T legally charge more on the assumption of somebody being Gay. It's illegal. But, the moment that Gays can marry, it WILL be pushed through to be legal to ask if somebody is Gay, just like it is now legal to ask if you are married, have kids, etc. They can't underwrite for homosexuality, but they will be able to if Gays can marry. If you don't want to believe it, that's your problem. I deal with this stuff all the time on the administrative side. I know what rates are based on and what actuaries can take into account.
So, how exactly do you teach your children that Marriage is sacred as a bond between man and wife if it could also be between man and man or wife and wife? I try not to lie to my daughter, so I really can't see your reasoning.
http://www.avert.org/statsum.htm
59% of Men get AIDS by having sex with other Men in the US. 77% of people living with AIDS in the US are Men. 1.1 million people in the US have AIDS. Do the math, it's not pretty.
People don't know where it started, and we may never know.
Don't underestimate the power of lobbyists. The insurance lobbyist will do anything they can to charge more.
Let me try this a different way, since I think you are not seeing what I am saying:
Marriage is now defined as a union between man and woman. If that definition changes, I can't tell my daughter that "marriage" is a sacred union between MAN and WOMAN. At that point, it's not. It's changed. "Marriage" becomes a union between two people- any two people. How can you teach about something that isn't true? It COULD be a sacred Union between Man and Woman, but by definition, and what she would learn from society, that wouldn't exist.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account