|
|
Post by Disgusted-Daily on May 16, 2008 12:07:41 GMT -5
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24649689/I hope this is never allowed in New York. Before I go any further I will say that I am not homophobic and do not have a problem with gay people. I have many friends that are gay and have had them over to the house and even gone on trips with them. The problem I have is when you bring children into the equation. I don't believe this is good for a child and may be confusing to some. I do not want to have to explain to my son why two guys or girls are holding hands or kissing each other. I also think this sends a bad message to all man kind. I mean what is next? Is there no end to who we have sex with? Is this the start of an ugly breeding war?
|
|
|
|
Post by kim on May 16, 2008 12:30:08 GMT -5
I think that if you're gay, you're gay, and if you fall in love with someone of the same sex you should be able to marry that person. Looks at some traditional marriages...they're crap. Look at Brittney Spears and people like her. I'd rather two stable men or 2 stable women in monogamous relationships get married and have kids than someone like her. I have no problem with gay people getting married. They're just like everyone else...they want a family, just like everyone else. They don't want special rights, they want equal rights.
Granted, some want special rights, and some are just 'out there'. But some straight people are, too. Most gay people that I know, though, are just like you and I and they want the same things we want.
|
|
|
|
Post by rrogers40 on May 16, 2008 17:00:32 GMT -5
I think that they should be allowed to "marry" but they should not expect any church to "marry" them- and thats what my fear is. If allowed to marry I know that some of those people will try to make an even bigger statement and sue a Church that does not marry them because their marriage is against their beliefs.
From what I hear they might vote to overturn their supreme court.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ralph on May 17, 2008 3:57:50 GMT -5
I have to agree with Todd on some aspects, and with Kim on others.
I have two friends that are gay, have been together for over 30 years.
Great couple......I used to work for them in the restaurant business and I found them no different than anyone else.
They were, and are, two of my best friends. They helped me oput in life during the time I was going through a rough spell in my first marriage and probably saved my life in the process.
Their "marriage" has been longer than both of mine put together.
I do think that such a relationship should be entitled to the same benefits and respect that any "straight" relationship should.
Though I do believe that the term marriage has been more associated with religious aspects more than with anything else.
You can call it whatever you want......it is still two people living in a partnership with each other......for the good of both.
Children are another story. I imagine it is much easier for people to look at two women in a relationship nurturing a child then it is for them to see two men in one doing the same......at least it is for me anyway.
This is the one part I can't answer, and I imagine that down the road a hundred years from now won't make much difference to any of us.
But if the couple, no matter what the gender, can prove they can raise a child in an environment which promotes the "usual" moral values and not trying to instill a "gender based" bias towards sexuality, then who are we to question this?
In my opinion, this has probably already been taking place for hundreds of years in one way shape form or another.
So I guess we only have to ask ourselves, at what time do we acknowledge it?
|
|
|
|
Post by bobbbiez on May 17, 2008 10:08:07 GMT -5
 Who am I to judge?  Each to their own.  "Live and let live." Well, maybe not a few scumbags around here. lol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 
|
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on May 17, 2008 10:11:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by bobbbiez on May 17, 2008 10:23:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by countrygal on May 17, 2008 11:47:42 GMT -5
There are straight couples that shouldn't even have a pet fish let alone kids! If there are gay couples that can provide a loving environment for a child, go for it! I tell my boys that every family is different. Sometimes there is just a Mom or just a Dad. Sometimes kids live with their Grandparents. Sometimes there are two Moms or Two Dads. Ya know what.....it didn't faze them a bit.
As far as marraige goes....I don't know why anyone would want to get married by an organization that condems who you are. If there is a church willing to marry them, that's good I guess. But most churches condem homosexuals. Don't get me started on organized religion.
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on May 17, 2008 18:33:12 GMT -5
Ideally, I don't believe the government should be involved in ANY marriage. I assume there have been gay couple as long as there has been hetero couples. And it doesn't bother me what people do that doesn't endanger me. That said, I do resent the politicization of issues, whether about gays or religion or abortion or other hot buttons-du-jour, and find it annoying that I have to listen to strident messages about such small segments of the population.
But this is America, after all.
|
|
|
|
Post by concerned on May 18, 2008 9:37:23 GMT -5
Somehow the word marriage is being redefined. Philosophers speak of ontology as the science or philosophy of being, the essence of a thing. For example, a rock is a rock and not a cabbage; a man is a man and a woman is a woman. Marriage is ontologically between a man and a woman, ordered toward the union of the spouses, open to life through the conjugal act in procreation. It also forms the foundation of family.
There can be no such thing as “marriage” between two same sex people engaging in sexual acts, even if they engage in such acts only with one another and for a protracted period of time. This is true no matter what a Court or legislature may try to impose to the contrary.
The late great C. S. Lewis coined the phrase, “verbicide” in his Book entitled “Studies in Words”. The term referred to the murder of a word. Here is an example in terms of abortion:using the word “choice” to describe the killing of a child in the womb paved the way for abortion on demand, once universally opposed, and opened the door for it to be heralded as a “right” in America - and throughout the West.
Marriage between a man and a woman was never seen as simply a “religious” idea but an institution that was confirmed by the Natural Law. Monogamous heterosexual marriages and in tact families formed the basis of civil society. Even those who broke their marriage vows and divorced did not call for scrapping the institution.
Marriage and the family founded upon it were viewed as promoting the common good of society. Stable marriage between a man and a woman was seen as a “good” that promoted human flourishing.
Taking this position is not being intolerant. It is not a matter of tolerance or respect. Genuine tolerance does not mean accepting the re-ordering of civil society to accommodate “alternative” lifestyles when they insist on the use of the police power of the State to enforce a new social, legal and cultural order. There is a difference between freedom, liberty and libertinism.
True marriage is the most fundamental of all human social institutions. It is a relationship proposed and protected by the Natural law that binds all men and women. It finds its foundation in the order of creation. Civil institutions do not create marriage nor confer upon anyone a “right” to marry. The institutions of government should, when acting properly, defend marriage against those who would redefine it.
|
|
|
|
Post by kim on May 18, 2008 10:50:54 GMT -5
Well Concerned, it's clear that you and I will never agree on this subject! :-o That's ok, though...you can have your view, I'll have mine.
|
|
|
|
Post by dan on May 18, 2008 11:12:12 GMT -5
....and that response is why I enjoy the civility here. It's a much nicer place to be.
|
|
|
|
Post by concerned on May 18, 2008 11:14:49 GMT -5
Amen
|
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on May 18, 2008 11:30:03 GMT -5
For those of you who have a happy marriage, God Bless you, and best wishes for a long and happy future together.
For those of us who have paid the price of the legal fees and frustrations of divorce, I for one, say "Let the poor bastards suffer the same abuse and humiliation as straight people!!" LOLOL!
I don't care what they call their legal status. I guess they deserve to have benefits such as insurance coverage and such, if they are committed to a long term relationship. I will reserve judgment on whether they should be able to adopt children. I have not resolved that issue to the point of having a solid opinion. The jury is still out on that issue as far as I am concerned.
God put them here. I am sure he has a purpose for creating gays. Not for me to judge, or condemn them. I personally don't think either Government, or Church should meddle in peoples personal decisions, as long as the people's decisions don't affect them personally. Let the gays enjoy the bliss and suffer the misery of whatever the rest of us experience in our "marriage" or long term relationships.
I have had friends that were gay, and I have also busted the faces of gays who made inappropriate advances to me. Like I said before, reading about the behavior and preferences of lesbians, I think I ARE one, LOL.
|
|
|
|
Post by concerned on May 18, 2008 11:57:26 GMT -5
The government by its very nature meddles in people's personal decisions; I guess that is why we have laws, and redefying marriage as in this case shows the influence that government has on our personel lives. If that much control can be given to any government than a counter balance is needed so that government does not get out of control in terms of morals. The Church( I'm talking universal here) is the counter balance when it comes to morals, faith, etc.
Well I guess one can stretch that and say that God also created murderers, pedofiles, and every other negative aspect of society, yet we condemn and judge them. I just am not sure if we can explain homosexuality as a valid life sustaining lifestyle choice; the jury is still out as to whether the brain of a developing embyro who is either male or female is somehow changes due to the absorption of hormones in fetal development so as to predetermine there future sexuality as either be heterosexual or homosexual.
I know that divorce is expensive and painful, especially for the children but that doesn't mean we have to stop or redefine marriage, because some do not work. I get your humor though, lol
The union of love, based on matrimony between a man and a woman, which makes up the family, represents a good for all society that can not be substituted by, confused with, or compared to other types of unions. If gays would be happy with a civil union and the "rights" that come along with that civil union then maybe that can be the answer. We cannot allow a government to change the meaning of marriage just to allow a man and a man or a women and a woman to legally have a means to the rights that come along with the sanctification of matrimony.
|
|
Who am I to judge? 
Each to their own. 
