It is not for man to judge, I suppose, but I feel compelled to offer my feelings, not as condemnation but as honest opinion.
I am not a homosexual. I have no current friends, that I know of, that are homosexuals. I have had friends and employees who were and I assume are, and I can honestly say I have liked them. They have never tried to convince me to be a homosexual or really did anything that was what I will call really out there or stereotypically gay. You know with really wild gestures, clothing and actions that seem to fit what we see on TV these days. In my opinion these things make them clown like and are counterproductive to their causes.
I know many gay people live very productive and positive lives and contribute to society in many way. Many important people in our history of the world were gay. I can not say I understand their feelings and as hard as I try, I just can not agree on all their arguments.
I have known people, one man in particular, who thought he was gay, and was in a gay relationship for years, but came to the conclusion that he was convinced he was gay by an older gay man when he was young. In fact the man was really heterosexual all the time. He is now happily married to a woman and has had children with her. I also can not understand how a person can be in a sexual relationships with men and women at the same time. Is this gay, or just horny? Like I say I can not understand some things about the subject.
I try to have sympathy and compassion for those who have attraction to persons of the same sex. They have not asked to be the way they are and have done nothing in their past lives to cause this. I suspect that most have had these feeling all their lives, with few exceptions. There are some who are not really homosexuals and have been convinced that they are, as my example of my friend I offered. But most have struggled and tried to change to what society thinks is normal. Their families have struggled and suffered with shame and guilt as well. There is nothing to be ashamed about as long as the effected persons live a respectable and honorable life.
There are however some issues I have that I offer as suggestions.
Do not compensate by being over the top as I talk about above. It only serves to alienate others.
Seek lawful quiet changes in laws being respectful of the rights of others.
Homosexuals are a minority not the majority in our society and even though every right should be granted to them, those rights can not trample the rights of the majority without causing harm to ones self.
I feel many of the sexual practices of homosexuals are sins. I am sorry but my own religious research and belief tells me this is so. There is no room for argument here but I will not preach to you about it, as I expect you not to preach to me on religious grounds that it is not a sin. We must agree to disagree on this issue. It is not my place to condemn anyone, that is for God to decide.
I can agree that homosexuals should have all the same rights that other members of society have, up to an including, marriage. However homosexuals should not be allowed or expect to be included in any religious group who feel that they are unworthy to be included in their congregation or group. There are civil and other religious organizations that would perform marriages and to bull headedly seek or force those who oppose inclusion is morally and ethically inappropriate. Respect of views is a two sided street.
You get my point I hope. I will say it again, I am not bashing anyone who is a homosexual. It is a matter of personal choice to those who feel they are homosexual.
Recently there has been a great hubbub about gay marriage. There have been groups on both sides of the issue. Marriage to me is a religious ceremony sanctioned by organized religions to recognize the commitments of a man to a woman for the purpose of procreation. Most, but not all religious denominations look at homosexuality as a grievous sin. Some sects do not see it that way and that is fine, but many do. I am for homosexual rights, but what about those same rights for religious groups? Should they be forced to marry homosexuals (sinners) in their facilities? Do these religious people have rights to worship as they see fit?
Now if an arrangement is not really what is wanted and homosexuals just want to ram the issue down the mouth of those against it, based solely on principle, well then I guess the fight is really about homosexuals wanting to take away other religious persons rights. Trying to force this on religion is way way way into the 1st amendment of the US constitution and we had better stay away form that issue. That amendment thought to be so important as to be the first one adopted, is not really about separation of church and state but that NO LAWS are to be adopted that will restrict the rights of citizens to FREELY practice Religion. Most of the founding fathers were rich old men and very very religious.
Homosexuals have done many nasty, in my mind, things over the past few years against people who have disagreed with them. To disagree and state your opinion is an American right, but things like posting names and addresses of people who donated money to fight against gay marriage is cowardly and shameful. What would happen if every person who was on the other side was identified and spotted as well. religious people could have done so but did not to their credit. That would be very unfair, but homosexuals on the other side thought it was not only fair but their duty. Very shameful.
It seems to me that those who scream the most about being discriminated against are the most intolerant folks against those who have a different view. They never for a moment think that “ hay! maybe those folks, even if I do not agree with them, have a right to their opinion”. These folks just blindly go on bashing and never consider the golden rule. But hay that is a religious concept and they do not believe in religion, but they want a religious ceremony of marriage. Go figure, really crazy.
What I learned from this article:
ReplyDeleteone's sexuality is about as complec as a WWF plot
you can tell whether someone is gay or straight by looking at them
Moral reciprocity is exclusively religious and does not predate the bible.
Legalizing same sex marriage infringes on the rights of certain religions.
Homosexuals probably are fighting for their rights simply because they hate religions, even the religious ones.
Good of you to suggest that legalizing marriage between sane, consenting adults is a good idea. Some of the views you express here are, frankly, silly.
Though not nearly as silly as some of those gay pride parades. Squick
your main mistake is that you have allowed yourself to be convinced that homosexual actions ARE sinful.
ReplyDeleteyou should realise that the basis for those views as set out in various religious texts, and i'll safely assume that in this case you're referring to the bible, are contextually based. Further, the story of Sodom is far and away different to that concerning a consensual gay relationship. you cannot put the idea of men being raped by a mob in the town of sodom in the same category as two consenting adults committing themselves to a monogamous relationship. to do so would be a failure of judgement on your part.
many of the rules in your religious text have been revoked because it has been seen in modern society how foolhardy they are. in particular, the bible condemns female teachers and also suggests that mattresses should be thrown out if a woman sleeps on one if she is menstruating because it would be ritually unclean. you can see that such rules are ridiculous and based on nothing but bigotry. Homophobic religious beliefs are much the same. i would find it hard to believe that a supposedly all powerful God would be so hateful as to call the actions of homosexual people, whom he supposedly created that way, to be sinful. If it is from his design, how can it be their fault. to condemn them would be maliciously spiteful. if this is your god's aim, i suggest you find a nicer deity to worship.
In response to my blog on this subject…
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for your feedback. But if I understand what your issues are is that most religions of the world, not only Christianity, are wrong in denying marriage to homosexual couples, that Christian interpretation especially in the New Testament by Paul is wrong.
If you do not believe in Christianity why would anyone wish a religious ceremony like marriage in a church? Is this not a contradiction? You do not believe in their religious philosophy, but you want them to bless your union? Dumb …really dumb.
I am not a bigot or against the rights of homosexuals. In my opinion they are to be given every right that anyone else can have including marriage. But those religious institutions that see homosexuality as a sin should not be forced to admit them to their congregation. They can be married at city hall or some denomination that does not see homosexuality as a sin. I have voted that way.
God created us and what we do in our lives is between us and that God. We make the choices in life and are responsible for our actions. I feel homosexual sex acts are sin, you apparently do not. Millions of people have lived a celibate life and sex is not mandatory for a happy life. But if you must participate then you are responsible for those actions. God does not hate you for your actions or mine.
My beliefs and practices are my rights and homosexuals have no right to force their feelings upon me, trampling my rights and that is what homosexuals do when they force themselves upon my religion. Your rights do not trump mine.
Homosexuals should in my opinion as I have said in my blog stop acting like clowns and start giving the same respect to people on the other side of the issue. Marching and parading only polarizes people and does no good.
I know you do not agree with me, but thank you for the feedback and good luck to your in your life.
Larry Wassman
I don't understand how your rights are being trampled. Are you being forced to enter into a homosexual marriage against your will? Clearly you think homosexuality is a choice. I'd love to know the moment when you chose to be straight. Was it a difficult struggle? How do you explain other religions, including those who are Christian, like the Episcopalians, who do not have these same prejudices against homosexuality? Or is your religious interpretation the only one that matters? Can you explain exactly how homosexuals being allowed to marry will directly negatively impact your life? Will it somehow cost you monetarily? Your opinion is that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry. When you wake up tomorrow, as best as I can tell, your life will be exactly the same as it was before you went to bed regardless of whether you wake up to legalized gay marriage or not. When gays/lesbians wake up to not being allowed to marry, their life is directly impacted by the knowledge that they are considered second class citizens, are unable to protect their families legally the way straight married couples can, will not be able to collect their "spouse's" social security or retirement benefits, may be banned from visiting their partner in the hospital, and could have their "spouse's" biological family come in and take half their possessions should their spouse die. I could go on but I am hoping you get the point. How would you feel if the situation was reversed? You claim to be Christian, are you able to empathize with those different than you? Do you remember what happened when blacks were not given their civil rights? They marched and paraded. The best way to get gays "out of your face" is to not give them reasons to have to march. Your ignorance about and attitudes toward homosexuals is largely responsible for these tactics that you so vehemently deplore. You can't have it both ways. Sorry. So lastly, I have to ask, why are you so afraid of homosexuals?
ReplyDeleteEvidently you did not read the blog or did not understand what I was saying. Let me quote what I said:
ReplyDelete"I am not a bigot or against the rights of homosexuals. In my opinion they are to be given every right that anyone else can have including marriage. But those religious institutions that see homosexuality as a sin should not be forced to admit them to their congregation. They can be married at city hall or some denomination that does not see homosexuality as a sin. I have voted that way."
Do you understand? Those denominations that do accept the homosexual life style evidently like Episcopalians, I used to be a member, are free to marry anyone they wish. However in this country we are free to worship GOD as we see fit without the interference of government. That is the purpose of the first amendment to the US constitution. Again for those denominations that do not condone homosexuality, they should not be forced to accept them. It is a direct violation of those folk’s rights. If you can not or will not accept that then friend you are no better than those who don’t want homosexuals to have any rights at all. Please do not include me in that group because if you do, then you are wrong.
Really guys, the man is trying to say that respect is a two-way street. If you can't respect his way of life, how can you ask him to respect yours. Stop critizing his religious views, these are his values. Start looking at your own argument...it's weak. If I'm not animal lover, and I join a park that is free of every type of pet, do I really need to hear from pet owners and about how they're being discriminated. Setup your pet-friendly park, and live your life.
ReplyDeleteWhat's exactly wrong with revealing the donors to a cause? Free speech doesn't automatically come with the entitlement of anonymity as many courts in this union have found. Coupled with this is also the legal precedent that's been established that donations are, in fact, are a form of speech. Hence donations having to be disclosed by all political institutions, parties and movements. The concept of transparency, in my opinion, is an amiable one, and one that is fundamental to the democracy, and thus the existence of the United States.
ReplyDeleteAs for marriage being a "religious" ceremony, I whole-heartedly disagree. The actual institution of marriage (in Western culture) does not have a basis in religion - it instead, has a basis in politics and the social sphere. It was not until the 12th century CE that marriage was incorporated as a religious institution by the Roman Catholic Church.
As for the concept of religion automatically taking precedence over equal rights, it can easily be disagreed upon. Yes, the first amendment does explicitly bar the government form passing laws concerning religion, however, the fourteenth amendment, which was ratified post-bill of rights (hence it being the fourteenth), also explicitly grants an equal right to all naturalized citizens of the United States, except with due process of the law. As borrowed from British common law, the newest law takes precedence over the older ones. This holds true for the concepts in the US Constitution (hence the twenty-first amendment taking precedence over the eighteenth and the fifteenth taking precedence over Article I, Section II, Clause I). Under this concept of constitutional law, the congress does, in fact, have the right to force religious institutions to observe same-sex marriage, or for that matter, any marriage, as it's a requirement of equal rights. I mean, if churches are tax exempt, then they might as well follow US law right.
The concept of marriage being a state right that takes precedence over religion is cemented by the Supreme Court cases of Mormon Church v. United States and United States v. Reynolds. In these cases, the LDS (Latter Day Saint) Church was effectively disestablished, and its members fined from practicing bigamy, or more specifically polygamy. These cases dealt specifically with the concept of marriage. It's obvious that the court found that marriage rights weren't inherent in religion (hence it being a social institution).
Now, as purported by you, the first amendment strictly prohibits the US government from passing laws concerning religion. If this is true, and marriage is in fact a pure religious institution, then aren't marriage laws inherently unconstitutional? These laws assume the position of an endorsement of actual religion.
In a final note, last I knew, the Civil War, the suffragist movement, the labor movement and the Civil Rights Movement of 1950's and 60's weren't exactly quiet. In fact, they were quite bloody, with 650,000 men losing their lives in the Civil War alone. And their rights were eventually given to them, because they were indignant; because they were loud; and because they were convinced that their rights were due to them. So why shouldn't the gay rights movement follow the same course as these?
Thank you for your thoughtful comments in the above post. Many who have responded here on my blog and sent me emails have just repeated asinine hate blabber with little or no basis for their rants. You have some logic in your answer and I would like to respond.
ReplyDeleteBut first let me make some general statements as to my position again as to homosexuality that I have tried to bring forth but apparently poorly as many seem to miss- understand or more probably do not even read.
1. I do not hate or have any ill will against anyone who is gay.
2. I believe gays should be given the same rights as anyone else in this country
3. Gays should be allowed to marry.
4. Gays have the right to express themselves in anyway they see fit.
However
1. As responsible people they should not make asses of themselves or appear as clowns as this brings ridicule and negativity to them and their cause.
2. Having rights is a privilege we all have by our membership in this community we call the USA. But one group of people does not have rights that take the rights away from other groups.
3. There is God given rights as the founders all agreed… (It is in the Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence) and man given rights. God given rights always take presidents over man given rights. The founders who wrote the constitution were all very religious men, even Jefferson.
There is nothing against anonymity at all as long as the intent is honorable. Let’s face it and be honest. The intent of those folks especially in California who put little push pins on Google maps to mark places of business and abode where for the sole purpose of harassment and intimidation. You know it and I know it. Would you want in the name of transparency to have all in favor of a measure like prop 13 to have little rainbows put in their yard so others could harass them for being gay friendly. I think not. What other intent was there but harassment?
Marriage is much older than the 12th century and the Roman Catholic Church. I know, I know you do not believe in the bible, but I do and I have the right, don’t I or do I somehow lose my rights? Read the bible and you will see many centuries of marriage being performed between men and women and men and many women for that matter.
Your assertions are a big big stretch. The 14th amendment and others had to do with specifically correcting atrocities against slaves. Specifically those amendments and others were to countermand the Dread Scott case and the Civil War. Somehow twisting this to mean that the fist amendment was no longer valid is, well, to put it in the vernacular of the day Bull Shit.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”
The above is of course from our Declaration of Independence. You will note that the word Creator is listed. Creator = God law, not man law. God has given us laws and they do take presidents over mans laws no matter how smart a man. The constitution (mans law) can not infringe on Gods law as per the first amendment. It is the first and most important and no amendment after it can take it away.
What the intent was, if you need a history lesson and from your writing I believe you are conversant in US history. The founding fathers where trying to avoid an official religion like the Church of England. (Anglican Church). That is why the pilgrims came here in the first place, they were Baptists and other reformation based groups. The first amendment’s intent was to stop the government from establishing one religious flavor as England had from being the only official religion of the land.
In my opinion gays are seeking respect, understanding, and acceptance. Gays can not force people to love them. I can not demand that you love me or anyone. You must come to the conclusion that there are two sides to this issue, religious and civil law and they probably will never mix.
Larry Wassman
The whole basis of an argument based on the concept of "God's law" is becoming increasing invalid in contemporary politics. As was quoted in this blog, the first amendment effectively bars the United States congress from establishing religion (hence "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"). Hence, the invalidation of the God's law vs. Man's law concept. I, like 25% of my home state, Vermont, have no religion. The United States is meant to function as a secular state. However, I will agree to the importance of Christian beliefs in the constitutional era. That was then. This is now. Things change. We have the evolution and big bang theories, as well as the standard model, string, supergravitity, higgs-boson and super symmetry theories. I'm not saying they're right, but they're beginning to supplant individual's belief in a divinity (hence 25% of Vermont being irreligious).
ReplyDeleteNow, for my marriage comment. What I was trying to convey was that the concept of marriage was not incorporated into canon law until the 13th Century CE by the Roman Catholic Church. Yes, there are references to marriage in the bible, but alas, the concept of unity between individuals is considered universal, as it can be demonstrated in native american, meso-american, african and south asian cultures, among others. To consider marriage as a religious institution, or more specifically, a christian institution, is invalid, as it transverses religious, and more specifically, social boundaries. The reason the institution was incorporated into religion, was because it was so fundamental to the social models of cultures. However, this institution is not universal in concept, as polygamy was largely practiced in sub-saharan and sub-equitorial africa, as well as the fact that the two-spirits (a third gender in native american societies) could marry either sex (sex is in reference to anatomy, while gender is in reference to mental state). Marriage also isn't a static concept. It's changed multiple times in almost every society. Pre-Hellenistic Greece, for example, openly allowed homosexual relationships, which assumed the same status as their heterosexual counterparts, while the introduction of divorce acts as a second example.
It is true that the fourteenth amendment was passed in order to overrule Dred Scott, however, the purpose of it was since gone past the original intent. This can be exemplified by the Lawrence v. Texas case of 2003, in which Texas's penal code banning consensual non-procreative sex was effectively dismantled. Lawrence, the plaintiff of the case, was arrested and convicted for practicing consensual sex with another man.
I will, however, admit that religious institutions should not be forced to observe homosexual marriages. I was simply making allusions to Reynolds and Mormon Church to assert that it could be argued that they could be, but alas, I obviously didn't make myself clear. However, from mind, I'm almost sure that every state (VT, CT, MA, NH, IA) that has passed a marriage law, has done so ensuring religious freedom (I know for fact that DC and VT have ensured this).
Lastly, I'd also like to point out the the Declaration has no legal bearing on... well... anything... The document, in fact, carries no legal precedence, and cannot be presented as law in a court. As for the constitution, G-d, "The Creator", "The Father", "The Son", "The Holy Ghost", deity, and any other form of these words are mentioned in it. This was done purposefully, as to not construe the document as one dealing with religion, or establishing a government based on religion. This document was also mainly written by James Madison, who strongly believed in the separation between the ecclesiastic body and the civil body. His intention of separation is embodied in the first amendment. Madison, in fact, introduced a number of bills which sought to bar state support to churches in any manner.
My response to the last post by Azul.
ReplyDeleteGenesis Chapter 1 verse 1:
In the Beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
We don’t have anywhere to go with this. I believe in God you apparently do not. There is no point in debating this, I nor you will change views.
I believe the Constitution of the US was divinely inspired and is as close to a perfect form as man can design. The Supreme Court of the US is charged with determining if laws of man adhere to the original constitution or not, They are not charged with changing or legislating or putting into context to modern times. That is why we have amendments. That is why things like slavery had amendments placed in the constitution and the court agreed that the amendments approved by the states were legal. Now it is the law of the land.
There is nothing specific in the current Constitution stating that marriage is a right in any form. Oh yah I know - liberty and happiness. I have heard that crap before, it does not wash. The procedure is that if a citizen is wronged and it must be a citizen, he or she can bring a case to the courts and that case can be heard by the Supreme Court. If the court does not hear the case, as it has not done in the past, Congress can propose a constitutional amendment and we then can have a ruling by the Supreme Court.
You keep bringing up things about polygamy and rulings by courts in the past. The matter of point is that the rulings of legislatures and state courts were never taken up again after the new law was passed to test if they were constitutional as implemented. Most of the folks you talk about like Mormons simply changed their practices and never appealed the ruling by the lower courts. My money says that if they were tested again the courts would rule the new laws as un-constitutional on the basis of the first amendment.
We have many polygamists living in this country today and will continue to have them. Have you no knowledge of the Muslim faith? Many living around the country are actively and openly practicing polygamy.
In most of the resent local law enforcement by local and states the charges were for perceived child abuse because of forced minor marriages, not multiple wives. So I am at a loss for your preoccupation to the subject. Are you looking to get more than one wife?
I suggest that you or some of your friends start the ball rolling. Complaining and crying about a perceived injustice is doing no good at all. Playing ring-around-the-rosy with local courts and legislatures is just for fun. It will someday get to the Supreme Court any way. One word of warning….the current court is pretty conservative and so you may want to wait until Obama can appoint anther progressive. I wish them all good health until after 2012.
I disagree whole-heartedly with the assertion that the constitution is a static document. If it were to be static, then many of the contemporary cases of the day wouldn't have happened. Hence Lawrence v. Texas, which, as I've said, cites a Amendment 14, a reconstruction era amendment. However, this case dealt with homosexuality, and the criminalization thereof. The court found, by majority, that the criminalization of homosexual acts is in fact illegal on the ground of the cited amendment. Another example would be Oyama v. California, 332 US 633 (1948), in which the California Alien Land Laws were invalidated. The court, once again, cited the fourteenth.
ReplyDeleteThen, in Griswold vs. Connecticut, 381 US 479 (1965), the Warren Court struck down anti-contraceptive laws in the state of Connecticut, on the basis of Amendments IX and XIV.
As we can clearly see, the interpretation of the constitution, on the basis for the reasons of the addition of the amendments is not common practice. All courts in the 20th century, ranging from progressive to conservative, have decided time and time again that as long as stipulations are not specifically said (XIV Amendment), they can be applied universally.
As for my polygamy cases, those are all supreme court cases - Reynolds vs. United States 98 US 145 (1878) and Mormon Church vs. United States 136 US 1 (1890).
Finally, as we can see by Everson vs. Board of Education 330 US 1 (1847), the United States began to become a fully secular nation, as this was the beginning of the application of the establishment clause in the first amendment. This case, which disallowed the state of Pennsylvania from aiding private religious schools, also involved our favorite amendment, the XIV.
I will, however, agree with you that most of our founding fathers were religious. However, we can clearly see in primary source documents, the father of the constitution, Madison, is completely secular in thought; he did not create the constitution as a document based on religion. Most of our founding fathers also... uhm... owned slaves. And didn't believe in women's rights. And were elitists.
Well I disagree. The constitution is static but amendments can be made and what you quoted in the most part was the court applying the previously passed amendment to a case.
ReplyDeleteAgain we have debated this subject out, I thank you for your comments and appreciate your point of view even if I disagree..
Not all founding father’s had slaves. My gggg way back John Adams, hated slavery and fought against it all his life. Jefferson and your beloved Madison were from the South and did in dead have slaves. Jefferson never freed his and some had to be sold to payoff his extensive debts after his death.
Jefferson’s insistence on keeping slavery alive in the south was one of the reasons we have political parties to this day. Jefferson and other slave owners formed a voting group to stop the abolitionists. The groups later were called parties.
John Adams said if the union evolves into parties were they value their individual members over the good of the country, the union is in peril and will cease to exist.
I find no value in responding to your posts from this point as I have a life to live. Thanks
gay people do not want to get married in YOUR church. We just want the same rights. If it pisses your religion off, then pray on it. Let us be. I don't want your church. I want the same civil rights you have been granted. I don't need any god to condone how I live my life. I would never force any church to marry me and my partner.
ReplyDeleteI'm active in seeking LGBT equality in Pennsylvania including same-sex marriage. Your blog proposes exactly what I seek. Leave religious choices of marriage to churches; if somebody doesn't like their church views, they can leave the church. But in civil government, all citizens and all marriages should be treated equally.
ReplyDeleteI don't know of anybody who thinks gay marriages should be forced within any church. I never even heard of any such incident. I have heard this myth being spread by folks who oppose my marriage. Can you be more specific, or give examples of where homosexuals attempt to force a church to accept their marriage?
I suspect there may have been (and are) gay couple, who have, for some time, practiced their religion within a church, then they may have asked their pastor to bless their marriage. Do you think that's a bad thing? Has this been taken further anywhere, where a homosexual attempted to force their church to marry them -- attempted to use civil law to force a gay marriage within a church denomination?
As for parades / clowns: The LGBT community does that for fun, and to show that they're not ashamed of who they are. I think sport fanatics are quite silly, but if they enjoy it, I don't care, I'm not going to criticize them for it. You talk about dressing up like clowns. Do you dislike clowns as well? Would you make the same suggestion to them? What do you care about gays dressing up in drag? Not all gays dress in drag, but I suppose a larger percent of gays dress in drag than heterosexuals dress as clowns... so I'll give you that.
I didn't realize there was a problem, or even the action of LGBT activists/organizations pointing out who's contributing to pro-oppression groups. But now that I think about it, yes, that happens. I always thought it was so people wouldn't give money or work with organizations / groups that are anti-gay. But I suppose that could be stretched to a purpose of harassment. You made a very interesting point where the religious right never attempts to out gays (except in Uganda, but that's a whole new can of worms). Almost makes me want to respect them a bit... well nah.
Very thoughtful and logical response. If more people would try to read what I am saying and interpret it as you have there would be less problems.
ReplyDeleteI agree, marriage in the civil areas and religious areas should be treated differently. All marriages should be treated in the civil area equally without question. And those religious institutions that have no moral objection should be free to marry gay couples as they see fit.
But those who have strong objections should be free to decline marriages in their facilities.
I do not know, of anyone where it is legal, that has been turned down in any particular church denomination. It was only a hypothetical comment as there are not enough places where it is legal to have much of a track record. But I have heard rumors to the effect, but no real experience.
Blessing of a gay marriage is in my opinion not a bad thing, but again it is up to the pastor or other religious official. I would think blessing the folks in question and praying for them is appropriate in any case.
A gay person should not just give up spirituality but seek some place where they can feel at peace with their life. There are many many organized denominations that will, and do welcome them. So if you are not welcomed at one place, just move on and find a happier, for you, place to worship.
I do not know of anyone at this time trying to force by civil/legal means to have a church marry them. However there are groups at some religious universities who are threatening to do just that. Notre Dame, and BYU are just two I have read about recently. The threat is always there and actions of folks like pinpointing paces of business and home addresses of people who oppose gay marriage of any kind, does nothing but heighten that fear.
As a firm believer in the constitution I think it is the duty of citizens to march, or demonstrate in a peaceful way in causes they believe in strongly. But that demonstration should be done in such a way as to bring honest attention to the cause without the demonstrators looking as though they did not deserve any respect or consideration.
The type of parades I have seen make the participants look like fools and crackpots. Gays are not the only ones of course, but I believe these displays and I call the displays do more harm than good for the cause. I don’t want to get into the specifics but some and a bigger percentage then should be have gone way past fun and pride into bazaar and down right disgusting. I have pictures of men deforming their genitals and marching naked in a gay PRIDE parade. Is this the image they want to project on serious people watching a gay pride parade? I know you may say every group has their kooks, but really there are way too many of these folks.
Marches, parades, demonstrations are all old school. Many gay rights leaders still think this is 1968 all over again and what worked to stop a war will somehow translate into getting the rights that gays seek today. It doesn’t, it only builds a wedge and talking points for those who want to use these events as cannon fodder to show the loony tunes. Today it is legitimate organizations in pinstripe suits with money and support of other civic groups who get things done. More time and effort should be put into funding and forming coalitions rather than marching up and down.
I am sorry I used the word clown, it was inflammatory, but I was trying to describe what most non gay people think of these types people.
Dear blog reader please except my comments without malice toward you or any others. I do not intend to insult or hurt anyone’s feelings. I hope you understand.
Oz,
ReplyDeleteConsider for a minute that you have no idea what it is like to be gay.
Being gay, it is hard for one not to feel a lot of despair with respect to the way things go in the world. I often read articles about gays being executed in backwards Middle-Eastern and African countries. Even simple TV ads campaigning against gay marriage can make one feel hated and alone. And the hate is every where in life... I attended a friend's Eagle Scout Ceremony recently and could not help but sit there and simmer over the homophobic policies of the Boy Scouts of America.
With all of these negative feelings, it becomes necessary for me, and I assume other gays, to tell it how it is. Anybody who opposes homosexuality or same-sex marriage is wrong, and a bigot. It's that simple.
You need to realize that this doesn't at all concern you. You might not end up voting against same-sex marriage. You might not ever say something to a gay to offend them. But this blog post cannot do anything except stir up confrontation.
How gays act in private cannot affect you. How they act in public will only affect you if you let it. If you stop letting this issue concern you, I imagine that you and plenty of others will be better off for it.
Why is having a certificate hanging on your wall, a ring on your left hand going to make your life better? If it will then for heaven sake buy a ring and I will print you a certificate. Nobody has ever asked to see my marriage license.
ReplyDeleteIn my state gays have the same rights as straight people except marriage. The gay community assured us that if we gave them those rights they would be satisfied. But I wonder if they can keep their word.
I have experienced much bigotry in my life that has changed the way I wanted to live. There was nothing I could do or my friends do to change how people felt and looked at me. I could have let it control me and make my life miserable but I chose to do the best I could under the limitations others put upon me. Was it fair, NO. But life is not always fair.
People who disagree are not all bigots. Disagreements are not all hate speech.
You will never be able to force people to accept you by pushing laws and yourself upon society. That will come over time with respect that is earned by homosexuals acting in responsible ways.
If you are reading in my blog that I do not believe in equal rights for gays, well you are not reading it all or are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am not your judge and jury.
However, what you do in the privacy of your bedroom is between you and your God. For me it is a sin, but that is just my view and those acts are a sin in my view even between men and women. If you are living a life devoid of those acts with another man, then bless you and I have no problems with your moral values. If you want to be married so that in your mind those acts are blessed by God, then yes we have a problem. That goes for heterosexual couples as well.
As for the Boy Scouts. You have got to be kidding. Have you any idea what would happen to the Boy Scouts as an organization, the first time a homosexual man abused a boy in the woods? The community as it is would sue them out of existence. You have got to be smarter than that. It is not right, I agree, but that is the way it is. I am sure as hard as it is to get Boy Scout leaders if all things were equal they would be glad to have homosexuals in leadership positions, but today it would be impossible. Not because of the Boy Scouts, but society. Come on grow up your looking for a boogie man that is not there.
I know gays are not pedophiles, but the Boy Scout organization can not take the chance and you know they are in a bad situation that they would just as soon be out of. Support them because there are gay young men in the scouts that enjoy the companionship of other boys. Why make their lives harder?
You can not change being gay, but you can change your attitude to be more positive. I know you probably do not want to hear about religion, but ask what would Jesus do? He loves you but would ask that you turn the other cheek and love those who hate you. I do not hate gay people, I hate sin.
It's not the certificate and the ring. It's simply the thought of receiving equal treatment, something you may not understand if you've never received anything else.
ReplyDeleteYour theory that the gay community might want more than equality is just silly. We've never asked for anything more and if we did there's not a chance in the world that we would get it.
I would say that people are not bigots for disagreeing if they did not support gay marriage but did not vote against it. As it stands, they are pushing their beliefs onto other people and are not tolerant of those other viewpoints.
I know you did not say that you are against equal rights for gays. I was simply saying that you should stop concerning yourself with the issue entirely.
The reason you gave for the Boy Scouts of America denying gays leadership positions is not the one you've given. They deny them those positions based on religious belief, saying that scouts need to be "clean" and "morally straight". Also, such a lawsuit would never take place.
You really ought not to say anything religious to me at all, because it's going to come back to haunt you. I'm not sure you know much about the bible, but there is a lot of stuff in there you ignore, and choosing to call homosexuality sin is just an extension of what you already believed. If you wanted to follow all the bible's rules, you wouldn't eat shelfish, you wouldn't wear clothes of mixed textiles, you wouldn't have sex out of marriage, you wouldn't marry a non-virgin, you wouldn't masturbate... You would stone your disobedient child... The bible says if you do not follow those rules, you are an abomination. But something tells me you don't.
We will never get equal treatment because we are not all equal. We should all have equal opportunities.
ReplyDeleteHomosexuals are not pushing their beliefs onto others? I was under the impression that the majority of folks in California voted to restrict marriage to a man and a woman. Who is pushing who?
The Boy Scout organization does background checks on all persons who work directly with children. The scouts have already had lawsuits from more than one boy’s parents who was molested in the past.
You do not have to look any father than the Catholic Church to see what a mess, homosexual priests have caused. The church is near bankruptcy because of it. The Boy Scouts would follow.
Everyone should be clean and morally straight. Aren’t you?
I am a Christian not a Jew. Most of that stuff you talk about is in the Old Testament and Jesus changed all that. Jesus taught to love the sinner not the sin. He is our redeemer and even sinners are forgiven if they truly repent.
I spend much of my life trying to help all people and I am concerned with all human beings, even homosexuals. I just think they are their own worst enemies and do things that are hurting their cause. The intent of my blog entry about homosexuals that I did last year was mainly to point out some of the ridiculous outlandish things they do, that just plain make them look like some kind of clowns not to be taken seriously. If my concern offends you I am sorry. Look at the pictures I give. I have others that are really ridiculous
And do no worry about my religious background, I am very, very thoroughly familiar with the scriptures.