Thursday, March 1, 2012

I Now Pronounce You Gay

Connecticut, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
New York, Vermont, and Washington  – 8 states down, 42 to go!

Women weren't allowed to vote until about 90 years ago. A lot of people thought slavery was OK until it was abolished nearly 150 years ago because it wasn't OK. Hitler thought it was OK to eliminate 10 million Jews and Gypsies until we decided it was actually genocide. After our nation's – and the world in general's – tumultuous history, it shouldn't still take decades to learn from our mistakes. Yet there are people out there who think 8 states allowing gay marriage is 8 states too many. The Republican party is even making the ban on gay marriage a key issue in the upcoming election. Apparently the economy, housing crisis and continued healthcare reform aren't really that big a deal.

Where I live, lawmakers just passed a bill for same-sex marriage. Not to sound overly naïve, but when I heard that I remember thinking, "They had to pass a law for people to get married? I thought they did that already."

Many of the proponents of the bill at the government level are gay, as are many across the country who have campaigned to have similar legislation made into law in their own home states. I'm not gay, and I don't think you have to be to recognize an individual's right to marry anyone they choose. Similarly, you don't have to be black or a woman to appreciate their right to equal civil liberties.

What I've never understood is why groups of people feel the need to curtail the rights and privileges of other groups of people for arbitrary reasons. And yes, they're arbitrary. A person's sexual preference has no bearing on their ability to be an effective firefighter, or teacher, or police officer, or ditchdigger. (There are plenty of straight people who suck at those jobs.)

I dated a woman who thought gays shouldn't be allowed in the military or in law enforcement. This was back during the early days of President Clinton's liberal gay rights policies which eventually morphed into "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". I asked her why she felt this way. Her response was that gays in the military would weaken the military's morale and, thus, their readiness because the straight members would be so uncomfortable sharing barracks or showers with the gays. And my response was that that's the straight guys' problem. The gays aren't uncomfortable, so why should they be penalized because a bunch of backward-thinking homophobes don't know how to man up? If G.I. Joe is weirded out by G.I. Joey, get G.I. Joe some sensitivity training. And hey, if you're worried about being hit on by a gay bunk mate, just say no. (Straight soldiers have a history of raping and abusing women in the military already. Sounds like a personal problem...)

I wish I was a trained social psychologist because maybe then I'd have some insight into why homosexuality makes so many people so uncomfortable, even afraid. And I don't say that so I'll look ultra-progressive and cool. I say that because I'd honestly like to know. I understand that homosexuality scares many straight people. I just don't understand why.

Being gay doesn't make you smarter or dumber, stronger or weaker, taller or shorter, fatter or skinnier. Gay people are old and young, black and white, yellow and brown. They're rich and poor, have great jobs and are unemployed. They're less likely to be rapists, serial killers and child molesters. Homosexuality isn't contagious, it doesn't smell funny, it doesn't look funny (most of the time), and it doesn't breed promiscuity. It doesn't affect anyone else in any way, save for an individual's chosen response to it. It's interesting that gays have never sought to compromise the rights and privileges of, or otherwise sanction, straight people. Maybe they would if they were the majority. Maybe if there were more of "them" than "us", I'd have to kiss Christy in private. And maybe I'd read more news stories about straight-bashing and "Herpes: The Straight Disease!" I'd hear more pundits twisting arcane bible scripture to justify their warped interpretation of God's word.

Bottom line, who among us has the right to say who should and shouldn't be allowed to marry? Common sense dictates that you can't marry your sibling or your dog. But short of the obvious, I don't see the problem. Until someone comes along and can prove they're an expert on love and marriage, I think we should all be allowed to make our own decision when it comes to a spouse. Love isn't gay or straight.

107 comments:

  1. common sense told the egyptian pharaos marrying their siblings was very reasonable:
    common sense kind of changes through culture and time :-)

    think about masturbation. which is kind of sex with your own gender. and remember how confromtstional the topic is. and it only involves one person. (which for some people of course is the troubling reason)

    when you look at nature, it has everything. not only two sexes. it has beings staying in one gender, it has being changing gender once or more, it has beings having both gender.

    people seem to depend on humans having two genders that attract each other. even in tar trek they relate to that.
    actually humans can do more than that, representing the same variety as can be found in nature. (for those who believe in god, god created this very variety)
    for a long time, people were not able even to SEE the fact that homosexuality exists in nature, within animals as well. they said it does not. Documentaries from older times SHOW it exists, but people "cose" not to see.

    Gay is just one possibility of several ;)
    of course love is not gay or straight.
    I totally agree.

    Several ancient societies accepted homosexuality.

    i do not think there can be "one" reason for this far. But one aspect of it surely can be found in religion.

    great post, Steven .-)))

    oh btw
    will be away for another working weekend and won't be able to respond during the weekend.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a good point that "normal" and "common sense" change with the times. What was unusual 100 years ago may be commonplace now. All the more reason for openness and tolerance when confronted with the unknown or unfamiliar. Good reply, sorei!

      Have a wonderful, productive weekend! :-)

      Delete
    2. You're right. It isn't new. People just didn't want to see it. Normal changes with the times.

      Delete
    3. LOL! I didn't mean to write EXACTLY what @Steven wrote. :)

      Delete
  2. Everybody should be able to get married if they're committed and in love. Why not? The whole Bible reasoning doesn't make sense, and that's what people who are against it always fall back on. How can God not love and support two people who are in a solid relationship? Especially if they're raising children and providing them with a loving home. Let them get married and have all the benefits that come with that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was talking to a friend of mine today about this topic (trying to get him to visit my blog and actually write something) and he said he didn't have a problem with gay "legal partnerships" or something like that. He didn't like the idea of gays being married and getting benefits like insurance, etc. We talked for a few minutes about it and he changed his mind. Yay! ;-)

      Delete
  3. Two of my best friends are gay. I wish they could get married. They've been together for years and deserve to be able to make that commitment if they want.

    ReplyDelete
  4. now that i come to think of it:

    why should we follow nature, just do anything like animals, I mean, we have self-awareness ans we evolve.

    And maybe evolution should lead us to the right to choose hetero as "normal".

    ReplyDelete
  5. Once again Steven, brilliant, eloquent, controversial, and important post!

    If a person is able to physically, mentally and intellectually pass a test to qualify for a job, then they should by all rights, obtain that job or profession. It should be no different if you are black, white, yellow, brown, purple, gay or straight.

    I doesn't matter what color or sexual orientation you are, you just can't controll who you are going to be attracted to and fall in love with. My hat's off to the ones that are brave enough to display it and it should NOT be any one else's business!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I admire people who are brave enough to display their love too @woodysgirl64. You're right. It isn't anyone else's business.

      Delete
  6. I don't understand denying select groups of people rights that others get to enjoy. To what end? Straight or gay, people who are committed to one another should be able to marry and openly celebrate with their friends and family. And along with getting to say, "I do," they should also be able to sign-up for spousal medical insurance benefits, etc.

    The United States has a long history of denying people their marital rights. It was only 45 years ago (1967) that the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that anti-miscengenation laws were unconstitutional (laws prohibiting marriages of mixed couples). Just 45 years ago.

    It's hard for me to believe we still have so many backward-thinking people in charge of our government, and so many more who are outspoken about their narrow-minded ways. What is it that frightens them about gays being able to marry and have equal rights as couples? It won't change their quality of life or affect them in any way. So why do they care?

    I wish I could believe I would see a day in my lifetime when everyone was equal in every way. Sadly, I'm afraid I won't.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm afraid human nature is forever going to make total equality among different groups - religious, ethnic, sexually oriented, economically – impossible. It's sad. I didn't realize mixed couples were only "legal" 45 years ago. That's just atrocious.

      Delete
    2. Whoa! 45 years ago it was illegal for mixed couples to get married? That's seriously messed up! I didn't know it was ever illegal, but knowing it was only 45 years ago makes it even worse! That's so recent!

      When it comes to social progress our country moves slower than a snails pace. This makes me sad. It never should have been illegal for mixed couples or gay couples to get married.

      Delete
    3. Seriously? It's only been 45 years that it's been legal for mixed couples to get married? WTF? That's almost in my lifetime!

      Delete
    4. If it took our country that long to legalize interracial marriages, imagine how long it's going to take to make gay marriage legal in all 50 states. Sheesh!

      Delete
    5. I know. When I read @Christy's comment I was shocked. I recorded a documentary about a mixed couple in the 50s that got all kinds of grief because of their union. I haven't watched it yet, so I don't know what kind of grief, but I think they were arrested. "Mr. and Mrs. Smith, I'm placing you under arrest for the charge of marriage." Sick.

      Delete
    6. There's a big difference between mixed couples getting married and gays getting married. With mixed couples you're talking about men and women. There's nothing wrong with that.

      It is shameful that it took our country so long to recognize that making mixed marriages illegal was wrong.

      Delete
    7. It isn't so different @Adam. Two groups of people are being denied rights that others enjoy. Why should you be able to get married but my friends Dan and Kyle can't? They're in love, have been together for 12 years, own a home together, consider themselves married (since their state won't let them legally), and would like to adopt children and build a family. What's the diff? I see a ton of straight couples that don't have the commitment they do to each other.

      Delete
  7. Steve, the only reason that I come up with as to why folks are afraid of gays is well, because they don't want anything stuck in their sensitive little butt holes...the thought of that just sends them over the edge....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LMAO!!! I've never heard it put quite that way. ;-) Some people's buttholes seem to be as sensitive as their feelings. lol!

      Delete
    2. LMAO! I think it's because they've got something stuck up their - well you get it. :)

      Delete
    3. Nice one, @Sarah! LOL! (Wouldn't it be great if some of those people read these comments? ;-))

      Delete
  8. Not to be obtuse, but "I Now Pronounce You Gay?"

    Shouldn't it be "I Now Pronounce You Husband and Husband or Wife and Wife?" Or maybe "I Now Pronounce You Same-Sex Married?" Or maybe "Ladies and Gentlemen, Mr. and Mr. Jones?" Or maybe "Here Come the Grooms?"

    The title threw me off. I was like huh? But I guess it did what it was supposed to do and got me to read what you wrote.

    Good post. I agree that everybody should be able to get married if they want to. I mean come on. Its legal for me to get married at 17 (I'm much older now) to an alcoholic, but two people of the same sex who have it all together and are older can't? Whaaaa?

    I'm really tired of the religious right trying to tell everybody what they can and can't do. Stop it already! You are not in charge of who falls in love. You are not in charge of my body. You are not in charge of a lot of things that you would like to dictate. Freaks.

    Thanks for the good post!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Have you been talking to my girlfriend @Christy? lol! She didn't like my title either. I think I thought it was more clever than it actually is. But, you're right, it gotcha in here! :-)

      I try not to make a point of targeting one group as being "wrong" (I fail miserably sometimes, and end up a hypocrite), but it does seem like religious right-wingers are awfully intolerant of those that don't feel exactly as they do. Whenever there's an issue of civil liberties or equal rights, it seems ultra-religious groups are at the center of the controversy. If most of them just shut up, there'd be a lot less strife in the world. They use God as a hammer for an awful lotta whacking.

      Thanks for sharing, Jill!

      Delete
    2. Oh good! You didn't take offense to me criticizing your title. I was worried after I posted. :) It just didn't make sense to me, but that's nothing new. I read as you waving w wand and magically making people gay. Dumb on me. :)

      I agree with you. If the religious right would just shut up, things would be a lot more peaceful in the world. Holy moly! We just discovered the secret to world peace! LOL!

      Delete
    3. No offense at all taken! I swear, @Christy essentially said the same thing about the title. I said, "Isn't that clever?" She said, "Um...but I don't get it." I said something as equally un-clever as the title trying to defend it, and she said, "Um okay. I don't like it, but okay." (I'm paraphrasing. LOL!)

      I think I used to be right on the cusp of anti-religious, but that really would make me a hypocrite. I'm not religious, but I'm not against any religion that preaches love and tolerance. That doesn't seem to be what right-wing religious conservatives seem to preach though. They seem intent on reshaping the world in their own narrow, warped image. I read somewhere that more wars have been waged in the name of God or another deity than for any other reason in human history. Not money or power or land – God. If He's up there, I don't think an all-loving god would want bigotry, intolerance and prejudice perpetrated in His name. The secret to world peace revealed! ;-)

      Delete
    4. @Steven and @Jill I didn't get it either but my hubby liked it. It made me think of turning people gay, not gay people getting married. :P

      Delete
    5. LOL! I didn't read it that way, but now that you mention it. :)

      Delete
    6. Now that you mention it. ;) I didn't see it either until @Jill wrote her comment. It looked perfectly fine until then. @Steven you can curse @Jill now. LOL!

      Delete
    7. LOL @Steven64! :) So sorry. Teehee.

      Delete
  9. Do you really want to hear from somebody who disagrees? Seems like a gay lovefest in here. I don't agree. Marriage is between a man and a woman.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The little "Rules of Engagement" blurb on the left side of this blob encourages dissenting points of view, either of myself or others commenting on here. All I ask is that lively debate be respectful.

      The 'lovefest' isn't gay. It's love of basic human rights. In my opinion, the right of gays to marry is as fundamental as black's and women's right to vote and a woman's right to have an abortion. All those issues are different facets of the same gem.

      If you disagree with anything that's been said here, and it seems clear that you do, I'm sure others here share my curiosity in hearing why.

      So have at it! ;-)

      Delete
    2. @Bill I'd like to hear your reason for believing what you do. I don't agree with you, but I like to hear other opinions and hear why people believe what they believe. Thanks!

      Delete
    3. I do! I do! Come on @Bill. We won't bite.

      Delete
    4. Starting to think maybe he was just trolling and then got bored or scared and moved on...

      Delete
    5. @Bill if you're still reading this blog. I'm with you, so you have a friend here. Post your thoughts buddy. See my comments below.

      Delete
  10. @Bill

    yes I do want to hear different opinions, because that is most important. :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree. Hearing and understanding different opinions are what educates us

      Delete
  11. Ed. Note: I just wanted to reiterate that, although the majority thus far have agreed with my point of view, I sincerely encourage those visiting with a dissenting opinion to share it. I've always wanted people to feel "safe" debating here, especially if you have something to say that might not be popular. Lively, respectful debate only enriches us all. You may not change anyone's mind, but you'll give us something to think about nonetheless. ~Steven

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's one of the things I really like about your blog @Steven. Thanks!

      Delete
    2. Thank you for posting this. It's why I posted my comment.

      Delete
    3. @Adam: Your comments will always be welcome here. I was hoping someone would chime in with an opposing point of view. I'm grateful you and @Brenda spoke up!

      Delete
  12. Couldn't have said it better myself!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, @AJB! (aka Mom. Sorry, I just had to 'out' you!)

      Delete
  13. Live and let live is what I believe. Who are we to tell other people who they can and can't marry? We aren't God. We aren't supposed to judge. It offends me when people start trying to force their beliefs on me and other people. They can believe what they want, but they shouldn't try to force the rest of the world to live the way they believe. It isn't right. When they do that, they're playing God by trying to control lives. It's wrong.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Michelle

      do we really? we draw lines all the way.
      You say:
      Who are we to tell other people who they can and can't marry?
      Let me provocative again (like in my earlier, second statement):
      istory knows children marriages just as well.
      who are we to judge? Let's have child-marriages, if they love each other?
      What about a young person, say 12, loving someone and wanting to marry.
      What about mentally retartded people wanting to marry (which might eventually lead to having children)? What about very old people (which might eventually lead to the thought that very old people still might enjoy sex)?
      What about people who love animals? Or people who are closely related?
      We can always say, ah no, common sense tells us.... does it? Has it always? is it comon sense? or is it just our thinking of moralty today? Or is it a deeper feeling, mayb even genetic, within our cells, a sort of race memory reminding us of what to do and what not to? And who then tells us which of these ruls is righ or wrong, just because right now we do not LIKE some of these?

      Some people cannot stand the thought of marriage between different religions or cultures, what is more wrong about that than not wanting mixed races couples or hetero couples?

      if we say love is not straight or gay, why do we not say love is not young or old and argue with pedophiles?

      gotta go now, working weekend, this was my last chance to be dirsturbing ;)

      Delete
    2. Wow! Good point @sorei. Lines have to be drawn and we do have to have some rules. Some marriages would clearly be wrong, and that's not playing God. It's just defining what is morally acceptable. I mean marrying an animal or a pedophile marrying a child is very clearly wrong. But if there aren't laws to stop it, then people would do it.

      Gay marriage is another story. I see no reason why it shouldn't be legal.

      Delete
    3. ..just as marrying an animal is clearly wrong for you, Sarah (hi, Sarah :-))) ) gay marriage is JUST as clearly wrong for others.

      What makes your "clearly wrong" more logical?
      Actually i do not see anything really "clear", when I try to watch this more matter of factly.

      The person loving the animal will clearly feel - in his or her point of view- that this love is just as precious as any other love.

      I see no "clearly" actually, I just see beliefs and belief-systems, depending on what you believe you "clearly" see some things are wrong and some are right.

      In former times, people KNEW, earth clearly was flat.

      Sometimes I think we should not be too sure of what is clear and what not ;)

      Delete
    4. @sorei: I had an English class in college that was actually more of a philosophy course. In it, the professor (I think he was a professor...of something) challenged us to challenge what was "normal".

      You make a good point when you ask what is "clearly wrong". What is clearly wrong changes with the times. Interracial marriage was clearly wrong nearly 50 years ago. Women voting was clearly wrong before the suffragette movement changed our thinking.

      Common sense evolves as society evolves. What seemed obviously right 100 years ago may not seem so now. Recognizing what is "clearly wrong" and what is "clearly a violation of fundamental human rights" is something that each generation has to decide. It's just a shame that it takes so long for enlightenment to dawn.

      You really do make an excellent, and troubling, point about the relativity of right and wrong.

      Delete
  14. one more thing before i go to work
    i never quite understood this:
    one time people say there is something of god in all of us. we are shaped after him (or her).
    Another time we argue we are NOT god.
    What is it then? If we are shaped after god, why are we not allowed to make godly decisions?

    ...and now I leave before I am being shot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You'll be drawn and quartered, then shot! ;-)

      More later when it's not so close to my bedtime. Have a good weekend!

      Delete
    2. Good question. The answer as I know it is that we're made in His IMAGE. This doesn't mean we know everything He knows and can make decisions He should be making. We aren't all-knowing. We're just an image of Him. Kind of like a 3D photograph or something. I don't believe God is inside all of us. He's external. We choose to believe or not believe. Follow or not follow.

      Delete
    3. Well put, @Sarah. I've always seen the "in God's image" thing as a sort of guideline. We should strive for godliness in our lives; be good, be honest, etc. But we shouldn't presume to play God. I like the 3D photo analogy! A photo is just a representation of its subject, but it's not actually the subject.

      Delete
    4. ...ok, in that case the photo does not really need to worry about making fundamentally wrong decisions, as the photo will not be able to?

      a photo will only be able to play games that a photo can play?

      Delete
    5. @sorei: unfortunately, the 3D photo analogy breaks down when it comes to real life. Actual people can make decisions that a photo cannot, so a photo doesn't have any wrong decisions to worry about. People play games with other people's lives every day whether far-reaching (gay rights, civil rights, etc.) or more localized (messing with someone's job, bad neighbors, etc.).

      Delete
  15. I had to think about whether I wanted to comment or not. My viewpoint will not be popular, and I'm not very good at debating (I don't explain well and tend to back down from confrontation).
    But I don't agree.
    While I'm not one of those religious "freak" that hates gays or anything, I am religious, and due to my religious values, I don't agree with gay marriage. Marriage should be between a male and female. That is the way it was intended to be.
    My viewpoint isn't all based on religion (though that does play a huge part in it). It's also based on how things work, period. Two people get married, have children, and keep the human race going. Gay marriage/relationships doesn't work that way. It goes against nature. It's more difficult to procreate that way.
    I know my viewpoint here won't be popular. And I'm sorry that I'm not too good at explaining why I believe that way. Ingrained Christian beliefs and a look at the way the world works.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Brenda: Before I say anything else, I just want want you to know that I think it's brave of you to say what you said here.

      However...

      Setting aside the religious aspect, the basic biological function of all life is to procreate. I'll grant you that. But, at least where human beings are concerned, there's a lot more to Life than simply creating more of it. People interact in all sorts of ways that have nothing to do with procreation. From an emotional standpoint, humans tend to seek out that which makes them happy.

      From a purely superficial standpoint, we seek financial gain to improve our quality of life. We seek out friendship so we're not lonely. And probably most importantly, and fundamentally, most of us hope to find love. When love is found, it shouldn't matter what your sexual preference is or what ethnicity you are.

      The Bible may only recognize traditional heterosexual unions, but as human beings sharing this planet, we have to look beyond the Bible and our prejudices. We have to expand our thinking and realize that the Bible is not the only guideline for living life. If the Bible was the only way, atheists and agnostics wouldn't be allowed to marry either. Likewise, unmarried couples wouldn't be allowed to have children.

      People's rights shouldn't be sacrificed because their fundamental belief systems differs from group to group. If you (or anybody else) believe marriage should be about a man and a woman, then you should marry a man. But if someone else feels differently than you, should they be denied the rights you enjoy?

      I don't mean to put you on the spot, but you know I had to respond! ;-)

      Delete
    2. @Brenda, thank you for being brave enough to express your opinion. Although I disagree with you, I appreciate the fact that you explained what you believe. It makes the blog more interesting when there are varying points of view.

      Delete
    3. ...@Brenda, I want to understand better.

      2 people (man and woman) get married and have children.
      Is it the children factor?
      If so, what about couples who do not want to have children?
      Couples who cannot? (which is a growing problem, showing that hetero is not the only condition needed when procreating)
      does it still count when they adopt? (if so, what about gay adoptions?)

      so if it is the children factor, what about allowing only people who want to have children in marriage?

      Delete
    4. @sorei: Wow. Are you sure English is your second language? lol! What you said was very well put. Procreation is not the only reason to get married, so people shouldn't be denied marriage rights if they can't have – or don't want to have – children.

      It's funny. It gets so complicated – children vs. no children. And then that complication simplifies everything: adults in love should be allowed to legally get married.

      Delete
    5. I support you and your post @Brenda. I don't believe in it either and stated so below.

      Delete
  16. While you do have some valid and good points, I still disagree with you.

    I think we'll agree to disagree :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I kinda figured you would. ;)

      I'll just say one more thing. If we could all simply agree to disagree as you and I just did, the world would be a much more peaceful place. But, too often, people try to forcefully impose their value systems on others, and that's when we run into problems. That's what makes me angry and sad.

      Delete
    2. Now that I definitely agree with Steven. :) The world is full of different and opposing viewpoints. Just because we don't agree on things doesn't mean we can't be friends or get along. (I've learned this through experience as my husband and I don't agree on things like religion and politics!!). I may not agree with you, but I also don't feel it's right to "make" you believe what I believe. Honestly the world would be a very boring place if everyone had the same viewpoints.

      And I love your blog. You always have very interesting topics! :)

      Delete
  17. Remember Kirk Cameron from Growing Pains? Check out what he said on CNN about gay marriage.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/kirk-cameron-homosexuality-unnatural-gay-marriage-destructive-foundations-civilization-article-1.1032798

    "...destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization..."

    Wow. Does he honestly believe that letting two people who are committed to one another get married will really destroy the foundation of civilization?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Omigosh. I have a whole other issue with the importance the media puts on celebrity's opinions on policy. Aside from a select few (George Clooney for one), I don't give a rat's ass what they think about anything. Cameron's comment is a perfect example why. What the hell does a former child television star know about the foundation of civilization??? I'm also betting that, as an actor, he's worked with more than one gay person. Would he walk up to them, look them dead in the face, and say, "Yeah, you're an OK actor, but there are certain things you shouldn't be allowed to do because you're gay. Sorry, dude"?

      Delete
    2. Cameron may not have said it well, but I know what he meant. He's a good Christian man who is simply stating his beliefs. He stars in Christian movies now. I respect him. He lives a Biblical life with his wife and children.

      Delete
    3. And he deserves to live the life he's chosen, free from judgement or persecution. But does he have the right to choose how someone else lives their life?

      Delete
    4. He's not choosing how they live their lives. He's stating that he doesn't believe they should have the right to be married as husband and husband or wife and wife. They can keep on living their lives as they want to, but they shouldn't be able to get married.

      Delete
  18. the follow up comments i get in my inbox sadly never show show to whom someone is replying when replying *sigh*

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that's a downside of the new Blogger. I was talking to @Christy about that the other day. Tonight I got a bunch of comments from you and her, but I couldn't tell what you were commenting on until I scrolled thru all the comments one at a time. Hopefully it's a 'glitch' they'll address eventually.

      Hope your working weekend was good, though. :-)

      Delete
  19. Right now in New Jersey, there is the Rutgers Spycam case going on. A male student is accused of using a webcam to spy on his roommate's intimate encounter with another man. Dharun Ravi faces 15 criminal counts, including invasion of privacy and bias intimidation. His roommate, Tyler Clementi, jumped to his death from the George Washington Bridge in September 2010, just days after the alleged spying.

    This is a case of cyberbullying but it is also a case of heartless stupidity. Ravi was uncomfortable with the fact that his roommate was gay. He thought it would be fun to have a "viewing party with a bottle of Bacardi and beer" to watch the webstream that fateful night. He told other people to watch and have "viewing parties".

    Tyler was so humiliated and embarrassed at being "outed" in that way, that he committed suicide by jumping off the bridge.

    If only the two roommates took the time to get to know each other. If only the two roommates had talked about their differences. If only the two had took the time to understand and accept each other. If only, a young man would still be alive.

    You don't necessarily have to believe in or approve of someone's differences in order to accept them and/or live side by side.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow. If only...

      I hope they nail his Bacardi-buttered ass for a hate crime too. I always hope that college students will be smarter and more tolerant/open-minded than older generations. Sad story.

      Thanks for sharing this here.

      Delete
    2. Ed. Note: In case anyone's interested, there have been further developments in this case. You can read an interesting article and a timeline here:

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/16/dharun-ravi-guilty-of-invasion-of-privacy_n_1353616.html?ref=crime&icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D144090

      Delete
  20. No, no, and NO! The Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman. It's also clear about it being a sin for people of the same sex to lay with one another. If we say this is OK then what's next? Saying that it's OK to marry your mother or your sister? I don't think so!

    No, we have to have laws enforcing proper and moral behavior.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The argument, "'Cos the Bible says so" doesn't hold a lot of water with me. The Bible says a lot of things that are woefully outdated. (For example, it's not OK to have slaves or beat your wife anymore.) Times change, and our thinking needs to evolve too. Society's values and mores shift constantly. The U.S. constitution has been amended dozens of times. Maybe the Bible needs to be also.

      Blindly following someone else's interpretation of God's word and then imposing that word on others has resulted in more misery than anything else in the history of mankind.

      Isn't it also a sin to judge others?

      Delete
    2. So I take it you're not a Christian @Steven64. Just because society's mores shift, doesn't make it OK or better. Maybe that's what's wrong with things today. We've allowed too much to change for the worse. I'm not saying it should be OK to beat your wife or have slaves. No. The Bible talks about loving your wife and treating her right. About slavery, well I don't remember reading anywhere in the Bible that God said have slaves. That's a manmade thing. It's included in the Bible because it was part of what they did during the times. It doesn't mean it was OK even then. I'm talking about what God laid down as laws and rules for us. He was pretty clear about some things.

      As for amending the Bible, you can't. It's the word of God. Yes it is stories written by men. But it's canonical. God spoke to the men who wrote it and there are plenty of instances in it where we get to see what He intended for us. Some of it is just prose though. I'll give you that.

      About judging others, I'm not. I'm stating that God said it's a sin to lay with someone of the same sex. I'm not judging them for what they do. That's for God to do. I believe it's wrong.

      Delete
    3. This may come across as sounding needlessly argumentative, but I promise it's not meant to.

      It seems a bit convenient to 'blame' the errant passages in the Bible (wife-beating, slavery) on man and adhere to the passages you believe God was directly responsible for. Picking out the parts of the Bible you like and dismissing the rest seems a little hypocritical.

      My bottom line has always been that everyone - EVERYONE - is entitled to follow their own belief system. But it shouldn't be forcibly imposed on others, i.e. by law. And I'm not interchanging the term "belief system" with "societal laws". Yes, we need laws to govern a society, but those laws need to be developed with wisdom. So many laws in our past have been amended as wrongs were righted.

      Delete
  21. I'm not picking and choosing parts of the Bible to believe in. I'm stating that parts of it are clearly God's word to us on how to live and treat people. Those parts are mixed in with stories about life during the time it was written. There are things in the Bible that men did that God didn't approve of. It was how they lived. There are things we do today that God doesn't approve of. But God spoke to those men and told them to include His word of instruction to us.

    I'm not trying to force anybody to be Christian. Believing in God and the Bible are different than being Christian. You can believe in God and the Old Testament and not be Christian. Being Christian means you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.

    When I speak of the Bible, I speak of a text that several faiths study and believe in - Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. That covers a lot of people. I'm not trying to tell other people they need to read the Bible and believe every word. I am saying that I believe in the Holy word of God and that He meant for us to live a certain way. Three of the world's major religions believe the same thing (the same words, the same text). There's a reason for that. It's a good way to live. It's the right way to live.

    I like hearing your point of view @Steven64.

    ReplyDelete
  22. @Adam I don't think @Steven64 said anything about forcing somebody to be a Christian. Or maybe I'm confused by your comment. I mean you're right and all but I don't know what it has to do with what he wrote. Can you help me out? :)

    ReplyDelete
  23. @Adam: Life intervened and I had to work. ;-p

    I believe I'm spiritual but, no, I'm not a Christian, so I won't try to debate the Bible with you. Although – I do know that there is scripture that supports both our points of view. I prefer to believe that God is love, and God loves all. So, in that light, I believe a loving god would support 2 people getting married, regardless of their gender.

    As human beings, we've gotten into so much trouble in the past by imposing our beliefs on others, against their will. Passing laws that compromise people's rights, that subjugate them. I just don't like seeing it happening again with the gay marriage issue. I think there are so many more important issues that we should be trying to solve together. Homelessness, healthcare, civil rights, equal rights, you name it. Why deny two people who are in love the right to marry? Who does it hurt? If God is against it, he'll take care of business when the time comes. It's not up to us to decide.

    I wholly respect your beliefs and believe you have the right to live your life the way you want to. I also believe other honest people have the right to live their lives the way they want to also. Gay, straight; black, white; we're all loved in God's eyes.

    And I'm SO glad you shared your opinion with me/us. I hope you'll come back and share some more. (Not all my posts are this polarizing. LOL!)

    @Jill: Thanks for chiming in! You stepped in at the perfect time because I was too busy to respond to @Adam right away. I hope you'll stick around too. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  24. @Adam: Sorry! At the beginning of my last comment, I meant to say, "Sorry for the delayed response. Life intervened..." My brain thinks faster than I type sometimes.

    ReplyDelete
  25. The debate of gay marriage isn't just an American one. This is a great article from the U.K. Check out a few quotes from it...

    "I beg to differ, and to suggest that the ideal at the core of this dilapidated institution is lifelong commitment and, crucially, a public vow by two people to forge such a shared life.

    If marriage is indeed the cornerstone of a stable society, as conservatives plausibly argue, then its extension to same-sex couples will be a stabilising force. Gay couples who marry will not only be exercising a new right; they will be recruited to, and reinforcing, an ancient institution."

    "The extension of marriage to include gay couples will entrench the idea of the married estate as a social good as well as a private condition. Marriage encourages reliance upon a spouse rather than the state: a wedding is the ritual in which the individual recognises publicly that he or she is not alone, and that, choosing a spouse, promises love to, and accepts lifelong responsibility for, that person."

    ~ Matthew d'Ancona, The Telegraph

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/9135181/The-case-for-gay-marriage-is-fundamentally-conservative-it-will-strengthen-Britains-social-fabric.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very good article. We get so caught up in our own country we never think about the same thing going on in other countries. I like this perspective. Thanks for the article and quotes @Christy!

      Delete
    2. When you think about it, it does support the pro-marriage agenda. Would they rather have gay couples getting married or would they rather have couples of all sorts living in sin? Which is worse?

      Delete
    3. @Toledo

      :D I do like that thought, somehow :)
      lol

      Delete
    4. This seems like it's heating up everywhere right now. Not just in the US. Great article!

      Delete
  26. @Christy: Thanks for posting the link to that article and the quote, babys! I won't speak for everyone here, but I sometimes get so caught up in our "domestic" issues that I completely forget they may be occurring elsewhere as well. I also love how elegantly Mr. d'Ancona presented his opinion. To be able to write like that...;-)

    @Toledo: Excellent point! And an interesting way to look at it. Thanks for sharing. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  27. @Steven I'm looking forward to your next blog subject. Want to give us a hint? ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm glad you're looking for to my next post. Me too! lol! I've been noodling around with a couple ideas, but nothing I wanna lock myself into yet. BUT -- it'll be posted before, say, mid-April. ;-)

      Delete
    2. Mid April??? You can't wait until just before I leave to post! LOL! ;)

      Delete
    3. LOL! I won't! I won't! Maybe this weekend. I really do have something in mind, but I don't wanna screw it up, so I have make sure I have ample quiet-time to devote to writing it just-so.

      You've actually given me an incentive to get off my a*s and do it. So, um, thanks! ;-)

      Delete
    4. You're welcome! :) Now get writing man!

      Delete
    5. Yes, ma'am! (salutes half-heartedly and slinks away to his quiet place)

      Delete
    6. @Shay: If you have time, read the article link that I posted under @woodysgirl64. She sent it to me last week and didn't have a chance to post it on here, so I did.

      It pissed me off (the article, not her).

      Delete
    7. I'm looking forward to your next blog too. :)

      Delete
  28. Thanks, Tiny! The words are swirling around in my head and they're...slowly...coalescing...into an actual post. LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  29. I forgot you wrote about gays marriage already. You're a good writer and have a lot to say. I miss the old days of your blog and @Christy's blog. Those were some fun times. Neither of you write much now. How come?

    ReplyDelete