Gay people?

wow . . . this forum could end up getting heated!
Personally, I have no problem being around gay people. I've never stated this on this website before but for the purposes of this forum, I don't mind. I'm actually a pastor at a church in Florida. A gay/lesbian lifestyle is against how I believe God created us (based on the Bible). However, it's still my, and everyone's, responsibility to treat everyone the same. We're all created equal, no matter the choices we make in life. I do hold the sanctity of marriage as something sacred. I don't have a problem with a gay or lesbian couple wanting to be together. I also think that they should have as many rights as all of us. However, our word "marriage" has always constituted a special union between a man and a woman. It really depends on what you believe. If you believe that a "marriage" can only take place between a man and a woman, then we should be against gay marriage. I still believe that they should receive all rights and privileges as every other human. But I don't know that it's wrong to say that they can't be quote married.
I'm also a Canadian citizen. No matter how long I've lived in the US, there are certain public offices and privileges that I could never attain because I wasn't born here in the US. That's not a slap in my face. I still enjoy most all of the benefits of living in this country and I am thankful that the US lets me be here!
This sounds kinda weird but you just have to love people, no matter what they choose to believe and how they choose to act. There's a lesbian woman who lives 4 doors down from me. I have no problem saying "hi" to her and going out of my way to be kind to her any more than anyone else who is straight on my street. But that's me. And that's the choice I make.
Sorry for the long thread.

Yes I understand people should not have a problem with it. As far as the marriage thing...I am still dont know. I belive in God too but we cant deny people there right of freedom...I guess you would call it.

ns38

Speaking as a gay guy.. I feel the need to mention the fact that the divorce rate is so high these days, hetrosexual couples never have needed to fight for their rights to marry, thus you use and abuse that right to do so freely and requently.

If you can allow the concept of drive-thru marraige chappels in Las Vagas and alike? And great role-models in Britney Spears for young girls, teaching them it's ok to dress like a hooker and marry for 48 hours for 'fun'... Lets not get started on J.Lo, the internet's not big enough...

Gay people dont want to marry for the sake of it, alot of hetrosexual people think were all a bunch of club-going, drug-taking, sluts... Thats such a small amout of us... or a dated past representation, but the media likes to focus on those old school details the media focused on it the past..

The homosexual people who really wanna marry have found the one they want to be with for life, or are fighting for their future rights to do so when they do meet them...

I don't feel anyone should play the 'religious card'... So many hetrosexual marriages are outside churches, alot of hetrosexual people aren't religious, why do you allow them to marry, if you wanna play the religious card, then non-religious people should be stopped from marrying too? I feel if marriage were ever tottaly a religious thing, it wouldn't be in the hands of the law and under it's control! The church(s) would be in charge of it... play by that religious book thats older than any living person on earth to contest it's interpritations... sure that sounds fair for all humanity.... you realise ofcourse that wouldn't even hold in courts these days!! No Witnesses!?

Allow us to marry, if God see's it wrong, let him be the one to deal with us when we die.. But give us the freedom to choose how we live our lives... GOD will deal with us if he saw it as wrong! ...wont he!?

Luke T
(Melbourne, Australia)

Honestly, you have a point. God will deal with you. The 48 hour marriage thing is bad yes but just remember you cant top one bad thing with another. Well, That is how i see things


ns38

Luke,
very interesting point. I guess I tend to play the "religious card" because that is who I am and what I do. I derrive all of my sense of morality from the Bible (sometimes others derrive theirs from another source . . . their choice). I don't click with the majority of ways that marriage is seen in our world today. And you're probably right that when homosexuals desire to marry it is based on a desire for a life-long commitment. I just tend to see the concept of "marriage" itself through my relationship with God.
However, like you said we'll all answer to Him one day so I guess He gets the final call.

There is a difference between religious marriage and legal marriage. If you deny legal marriage to gays based upon a religious reason, then you are in direct conflict with the Constitution. I think that legal marriage should be abolished, since it has so much religious baggage. Instead, there should be legal unions that apply to any two people who love eachother. There can be no marriage for straights and something else for gays. There has to be one for all. I'm not gay, but that doesn't mean I don't think that gays should have the same rights as straight people. We are all equal in the eyes of the law, so unless you support going back to the biggoted days of calling homosexuality a mental illness, then we must afford them the same rights, privalages, and responsabilities as striaght couples.

Actually, not trying to start a new arguement really, but umm... we really aren't equal in the eyes of the law... that's why an 18 year old can't legally drink at a party. That's why there are different laws for different people, we are all different and the government realizes that.

Capt.over and out!

I think that we become what we hate sometimes, and a lot of folks just can't handle that...

Distinguishing between legal and religious marriage is probably the best way I have heard to put this issue into perspective. I always found something disturbing about a constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriage and the "separation of church and state," but I never knew exactly how to word it. So thanks to SIR for that.

To add my own personal opinion, I think marriage in this country has become a complete joke. If there is to be a law preventing gay marriage, then there must also be a law making it illegal for reality TV to auction off marriage and for Las Vegas to make weddings a drive-thru affair. Also, if the sanctity of the institution is what Washington is protecting, divorce should be made illegal, or at least come with a sizeable fine. Repeat offenders, i.e. Britney Spears and Jennifer Lopez, would deserve house arrest or something like that.

Follow my name above to my JU blog where I have discoursed at length about Gays and Marriage. But for those of you who hate blog plugs, here's the short version. (Short? Yeah right!)

As a religious matter, gay marriage is not currently banned. Or, well, it is in some churches...maybe even most churches. But as a gay man I can find a selection of churches in my mostly small-town area of the country that will gladly perform a marriage ceremony for me and my partner. Of course, I also went to a straight wedding this summer where the "minister" had received his qualifications in 20 minutes over the internet. In the gay marriage debate, it is important to note that even if the country suddently agreed that gay marriage is okay, your own church could still refuse to recognize (let alone conduct) gay marriages. As much as folks argue this is a religious issue, it isn't. Your own religious freedom will allow you to be as restrictive or open as your faith guides you.

What the gay marriage debate is about is the way state and federal government recognizes marriage. According to the GAO there are now some 1136 federal "rights" associated with marriage. Basically what the GAO did was go through all federal law and note where marriage is mentioned and how marriage affects the relationships between people. For instance, next-of-kin status or (my personal favorite) the right to inherit surface mineral rights through marriage.

Simply put, marriage is not just or even primarily a religious institution. It was originally (and still is today) a way of negotiating relationships materially. Meaningful relationships create families (and families are not necessarily defined by the practice of producing children -- which gay people can do, by the way) with material concerns (financial, realestate, heirlooms, doctor's bills, etc.) . The State recognizes marriage in order to clarify these relationships. The State recognizes marriages whether they are Christian, Hindu, Muslim, or conducted by guys who spent 20 minutes on the internet. Since homosexuality has effectively been de-criminalized in this country, it is hard to argue from a legal or constitutional standing that gay partnerships don't deserve similar State recognition.

My partner and I have been together for over ten years. In our own eyes (and most of our friend's), we are married. We work together in the same academic department , and four of our (straight) colleagues in the department are also married. We observe the same rules and procedures that they do: we don't participate on merit reviews for our partners, we don't participate in tenure reviews for our partners, students and colleagues often ask one of us to pass messages to the other, and so forth. The only difference is that should a member of the other two couples resign or get fired, they would retain their employee benefits through marriage. My partner or I would not should either of us resign, get fired, or not get tenure. I suppose we could protest and refuse to submit to being treated (punished?) like a married couple if we don't get the benefits, but that is not our way. We work diligently, peacefully, and compassionately for a day when our culture (but particularly our government) will recognize that our relationship is a meaningful partnership worthy of comparable recognition.

But to answer your original question, I think people are up in arms about gay marriage because the state of straight marriage is really pathetic. And since we can't really put the blame where it belongs, it is easier to scapegoat the issues onto the backs of the 5% or so of the country that might actually take advantage of a gay marriage. Scapegoating is one of the oldest political tricks in the book. What worries me is that some of the anti-gay marriage rhetoric practically takes us back to the pink triangle days of Nazi Germany. And, well, some people seem to be okay with that. Scary!

We are not equal.


NS38

I'm for homosexual unions being on the same level as heterosexual unions. You feel what you feel, eh?

Personally, I don't hate gays or anybody else for that matter. I don't agree with their choice of lifestyles, but hey, I' m not the one who has to live it right?

What I do dislike is gays who are in your face about their being gay. Hey, look, I really don't care and really don't want to know . I don't bring up my sexual orientation to everyone I meet and I think it's in bad taste to do so. These are the people who tend to engender hard feelings.

Someone mentioned "playing the religious card". I could just as easily say about those "in your face" gays "playing the gay card". If a person is religious, they aren't "playing a card", they are voicing their opinion from their world view and I find this sort of comment to be offensive. Seems like these days everyone has a right to voice their opinion on a topic EXCEPT people who's opinions and beliefs are based upon their religious beliefs.

Hey folks, you can't have it both ways. Either EVERYONE has a right to speak their minds, or NOBODY does. Some of you who reject an opinion because it's based on religious ideas are as guilty of narrow-minded bigotry as the people you claim are bigited against you.

I have said this once in another post, but I'll repeat it here as it's asked. As far as gay marriage goes, I'm against it. I feel that a gay lifestyle is not morally acceptable and should not be given validity by the government, which is what we're really talking about here. This is my feeling and opinion on the topic at hand.

I dont know if gays should be allowed to marry. I am not sure if our nation is ready for that kind of a law.

What I do dislike is gays who are in your face about their being gay. Hey, look, I really don't care and really don't want to know . I don't bring up my sexual orientation to everyone I meet and I think it's in bad taste to do so.

I think I know what you mean. I kinda get tired of in your face chanting, "We're here, we're queer, get used to it." And there are definitely ways people "play a card" (of the religious or sexual orientation suit) that seem, well, problematic.

But I also want to qualify this concern by returning to the theme of visibility. As a gay man I am made painfully aware of the ways straight relationships are way more visible and accepted, often "getting in my face." This can take the form of public displays of affection, or it can be something more ubiquitous like simply holding hands in public. Around Valentines Day (but also other romantic holidays), straight relationships are wildly put on display -- in advertising, in restaurant deals, in community parties, etc. Put another way, too many folks view showing up to the prom with a same sex partner as being "in your face" about sexuality, ignoring that the "norm" pretty much puts straight sexuality in your face.

Although usually presented as a sign of tolerance, the "I don't care what you do in privacy" position ignores all of the many ways sexuality is about more than sex. In large part, the real threat that gay marriage (and other gay rights) presents to predominantly straight communities is that it makes gays more visible. Our culture has more or less tolerated gays for decades, but that tolerance has been based on the idea that gays stick to their own communities (the so-call urban gay ghetto) or keep their relationships invisible. In too many communities, couples of the same sex walking down the street hand in hand are an invitation to a beating (or worse).

I dont know if gays should be allowed to marry. I am not sure if our nation is ready for that kind of a law.

When folks compare the gay rights movements to the civil rights movement, they are in part responding to attitudes like this. In response to pressure for civil rights in the 50s and 60s, many southern governors and politicians said that the traditions of their culture could not adapt overnight to the idea of equal rights for blacks. Strom Thurmond was particularly famous for making this "foot dragging" argument to maintain the status quo. I tend to think that there are some pretty significant differences between gay rights and civil rights, but on this point they share important similarities. Personally, I don't think I care if the nation is "ready" if the constitutionality of the argument can be made. And, from my perspective, it has been. The notion of civil rights and other "inalienable rights" is that they are protected despite what popular opinion says. My point is that "the country isn't ready" argument is not a reasonable defense. If anything, it suggests that the justification for gay marriage is there but it is up to the gay minority to convince the rest of the country that they should have their rights protected. That's bullshit, frankly.

And also, gay folks aren't not really waiting for a law. We don't need a law. Once homosexuality was effectively de-criminalized with the declared unconstitutionality of anti-sodomy laws, the legal burden ultimately fell to the states to define marriage as between a man and a woman only. The way this country works is that you are free to pursue your bliss unless there is a law or regulation that prevents you from doing so. It is currently not illegal to be gay and marriage is not currently defined (except in a few states) as between a man and a woman, so under the law as it is right now people of the same sex should be able to have their partnerships legally recognized. Unless, of course, states make the necessary ammendments to "protect marriage" by defining it as only between a man and a woman. And that is pretty much what is happening, unfortunately.

We are not equal.

No, but we strive to be. And we don't just cynically toss up this truism as a defense for maintaining the status quo.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident...."

Actually, not trying to start a new arguement really, but umm... we really aren't equal in the eyes of the law... that's why an 18 year old can't legally drink at a party. That's why there are different laws for different people, we are all different and the government realizes that.

Exactly Brandon. The only eyes that we are all equal under are the eyes of God.

~carebear~

Age-based legislation is completely different. That is a matter of the gov't saying "you are not concidered mature anough to make those decisions." While that is a debateable position, it is not the point of this thread. Anti-gay legislation is saying "you can't do that becuase we think it is 'wrong'." That is not at all the same.

I'm back.. I've posted to this topic earlier, look up the page for Luke T on Wednesday, October 20, 2004.

I do think distinguishing between legal and religious marriage is probably the best way to move towards leveling the
rights between hetrosexual and homosexual couples. Allowing some sort of "same-sex unions", "gay unions", I personally don't mind if it's not called "Marriage" based on religious grounds, I'm not looking to be religiously included, I seek only legal rights, the same legal right given to hetrosexual couples with a marriage license.

I feel Amendment to laws in countries such as my own (Australia) and USA, UK, and any countries with any respect for
equal rights to humans... we are all just humans, disregard the colour of peoples skin, their religious beliefs/followings or lack there of... Legally just give humans the same rights. People DON'T have to be labeled as anything, we are all on this earth together and should treat eachother with some equal respect and focus on more important issues in the world at the moment!! Becuase I'd expect someone to reply saying equal marriage rights for lesbian and gay people isn't an important issue, fine you may think that, so why don't you just support it, why not just let us get on an equal level.. And you wont have to hear this issue coming back into the media every 2 weeks.

Someone earlier mentioned those "in your face" gays, "playing the gay card", you'd probably find alot of those "in your face gays" are very unhappy people, living our lives so un-equally brings people to want to stand for their rights, by being "in your face" they are rubbing it in, because some people like the person earlier who mentioned their dislike for these types and many, many, more alike are annoyed by it. It gets a reaction, maybe it makes you uncomfortable, and thats their intention.. My guess would be that it wouldn't be happening so much if legally gay people had the same rights as straight people!

Really the world would be so much better as far as gay related suicide too, alot of young people whom have commited suicide in the past may have done so because of feelings of cynicism, hopelessness and despair. Suicide being a last resort expressions of confusion and hopelessness, growing up feeling un-equal is a very hard thing! Having been there myself, knowing I was gay was a difficult issue to come to terms with in a hetrosexual society, being guilted by society to feel I wasn't ment to be, that I was wrong, that I could never fit-in.

It hurts a youth alot to go thru this along with all the other coming-of-age issues of a pre-teen/teen etc. It's emotionally draining and it stays with you, because still gay rights hasn't come far enough to remove the differences and show better acceptance. I know if when I was growing up I knew I could one day marry or alike, I'd never have even gone thru a phase of questioning my worth, my existance and thinking of suicide! I never did make any physical atempt to commit suicide, because luckly I had strength to power on and felt I should power-on and make a diference and find love, feel happiness, respect and equality.

Thats why I feel so strongly about change, thats why I'm sickened by "world leader" wanting to discriminate using a Countries highest legal laws.. The Constitution.. To actually write an amendment into the Constitution banning gay marriage, supposedly to protect the institution of marriage and family. People world-wide should think carefully about this, because it would actually build into the Constitution the right to discriminate against a group of people, something I've heard even the USA have not done in the past. It's just not fair.. Unfortunately for us in Australia our "leader" Prime Minister John W. Howard is just a sheep to USA President George W. Bush and followed his lead to atempt to discriminate using this highest law.

Do we really need more division in these Countries? We need leadership to bring us together, making us stronger to face the dangers from afar. Does anyone really think an amendment to the Constitution will protect marriage and family?

I do not trust your US President Bush Jnr. and I am really concerned about the future of your country and the world if he is re-elected. I strongly urge American voters to consider their vote carefully and to vote for John Kerry on Nov. 2. It really is time for a change. We all need to make steps towards a safer and happier existance for everyone on equal grounds.

Thank-you to anyone who took the time to read my comments.

Luke T
(Melbourne, Australia)
http://queeries.blogspot.com/