Open Forum: Gay Marriage

January 7, 2009 § 53 Comments


Gay marriage is one of the most controversial issues of our lifetime. This is due to the fact that in most traditions, marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. Moreover, opponents of gay marriage argue that increased proliferation of gay marriage will inhibit human reproduction. Proponents of gay marriage, on the other hand, see any effort to block gay marriage as an attempt to oppress gay rights. Others see civil unions and partnerships as a more viable option. This begs the following questions: 

1. Is effort to block gay marriage an act of discrimination and intolerance?
2. Are civil unions and partnerships a good alternative to gay marriages?


::more info::
civil union
gay marriage


[Simon N.]


Tagged: , , ,

§ 53 Responses to Open Forum: Gay Marriage

  • tobeme says:

    Good subject and excellent questions. Opposition to gay marriage/civil union is born from ignorance and fear. People who oppose gay marriage are intolerant of gay people because they fear that by allowing gay people to marry that they are promoting other people to be gay or that they themselves could somehow become gay. Gay marriage is a commitment of love. People who are so concerned about gay marriage be a determent to the traditional family and the it’s values should be protesting outside divorce courts and protesting against media which promotes extra marital affairs as a norm if they are so concerned about family structure and values.
    In regards to civil unions and gay marriage, to me it is a matter of words and nothing more, call it what you want, it still is what it is. Civil union is a term coined to make people who are against gay marriage feel better about what they allow in their world.

    • MacGregor says:

      You are way off with everything you’re saying. The gay agenda wont accept Civil Unions as they are working to remove ALL stigmas attached to homosexuality, whether right or wrong. They are trying to impose their values onto others and call formerly traditional and/or religious people the likes that founded this country as bigots/racist or intolerant. That is a losing agenda as you can see.
      The first step would be to allow states to adopt some kind of civil union if possible that would have less ramifications as would a federal adoption redifining a word.

      • portableatheist says:

        The reason that a civil union is not the same as marriage is simply a matter of wills, inheritance, property rights and the “next of kin” status afforded by the law to legally married couples. A Civil union is a step in between actually married and common-law marriages. It’s a step, but not enough.

  • zmanowner says:

    What does the picture of the car have to do with gay marriage???? The fact that we still have to discuss this as a society is ignorant on a staggering level. Prop 8 in Ca was shameful, the fact that 2 people cannot join into a civil union to me just shocks me. I agree with TOBEME opposition to gay marriage is ignorant. Parents that teach their children marriage is between man and women is fine but those children will grow up and form their own opinion. Allow it society will adjust maybe then we can fight the real battles in society…..Leaf great blog…Zman sends
    leafless–That is actually a vintage wedding car, with two female chauffeurs on the side. I consider this picture one with “symbolic” value. Traditional marriage is sort of like a vintage car.

  • Barbara says:

    Marriage. Small wonder there is such a fuss. Right off the bat we aren’t even sure what it is we are talking about. Is it a civil matter, a contract? Is it a spiritual union, private between the individuals? Is it a religious rite? A matter of time and practice as in the common law?
    My marriage license is obviously a legal document, I paid my money to the city, and the city gives me recognition. Am I less married than my cousins who were united in religious ceremonies?
    I chose not to procreate. Am I any less married than my exceptionally fertile relatives or more than those who are childless NOT by choice?
    After twenty-five years, am I more married than the pair of one month or less than the couple who just passed fifty-two?

    Perhaps there should be a separate (but, of course, equal) noun for my intentionally unproductive, secular union.

    Leaving groups and non-humans for the Fox-network pundits, I say that two persons who declare their intention of being together (presumably for a substantial portion of their lifetimes) ought to be considered married.

  • Great subject. I’m an old Fag Hag from way back. My circle of gay friends is vast and frankly, I see absolutely nothing wrong with marriage in general. The heart loves what and who the heart loves and be that conventional or someone of your own gender. When it comes to love and marriage, se le guerre for everyone.

    I know marriage has to be made legal for all things bureaucratic. Taxes, benefits and the like, but I think in the states that still deem these unions “against God” are not seeing the big picture.

    I always thought the Bible viewed homosexuality as a sin because the Bible is essentially man’s interpretation of God’s law which by all intents and purposes could be Potemkin Village. A facade to force people to adhere. Jews don’t eat pork because God told them to, it became a Jewish tenet because man realized eating raw or uncured pork can kill humans via Trichinosis.

    I think homosexuality was banned in the Bible because at the time, the world needed populating. The Earth was much younger then. It needed people and logic tells us that two men or two women together can’t procreate. Therefore, call homosexuality a sin and put the fear of God into the ignorant.

    But the world is a very different place two millennium later. I don’t think many of the rules apply in the present.

    Not to get off on a rant here and sorry if I dovetailed the gist of your questions but I just think there are guidelines by which we should live. Call it what you will–man’s law/God’s law. Gay marriage would do nothing to the establishment, but it sure would make two people who are desperately in love with each other, very,very happy.


  • My comment is short compared to those before me, but I find that love real love is so hard to come about it any type of the sense. To me it’s just a message of the heart. Give it to em’.

  • If people who are gay want to marry or live together, it’s their wish and laws that prohibit the same can be considered discriminatory.

  • PiedType says:

    The prohibitions are based on biases, fears, prejudices, intolerance, etc., none of which deserves any basis in civil law. Marriage vs civil union is only a matter of semantics, as far as I’m concerned, and as long as the rights and responsibilities are the same, I don’t care what word is used. As for that bit about inhibiting human reproduction, that’s verging on ridiculous; nothing would help this world more than a little population control.

  • mimulus says:

    I totally agree with PiedType

  • raginggenius says:

    Do you realize that we are the first society to tolerate this since the fall of the Roman Empire? America will fall because she has turned her back on the Lord. Watch and see. The writing is on the wall. Revelation has begun.

  • vladseventysix says:

    Perhaps heterosexuals should start an Institution of Mating that does legally acknowledge the existence of mating other than being a sexual offence.

  • Here’s the PROBLEM America is creating as it ALLOWS the tyranny of a majority to rule – One of these days, some LGBT person who has lost a child, home, spouse, pension, and/or job to federal inequality will put a bullet through the heads of people like Huckabee, Warren, etc., and others who are obsessed with influencing “civil” law so it PERMANENTLY EXCLUDES our families from the same governmental protections ALL Americans deem essential (would the protections exist if they weren’t essential…..for the heterosexuals?).

    ALL of the above horrors HAVE ALREADY HAPPENED to many families and their CHILDREN due to marriage inequality alone.

    Why isn’t this HATE against our family seen as the VIOLENCE that it really is? [equality tax revolt]

  • raginggenius says:

    Shooting someone in the head sounds like hate to me. Open the bible and see what the creater of the universe has to say about marriage. God is crystal clear on the issue. I believe the call upon a gay person is to be celebate, not to try and be like a heterosexual and be with a girl. We have a disposable minded society going on. Beyonce says it best “I can have another you in a minute” Well that bull is part of the reason that 3 out of 5 people now have genital herpes. We were designed to be with one person and disobeying God on these issues is eroding our health. Divorce is high because divorce is an option. God didn’t intend for it to be that way, so going into marriage with that mind set, I didn’t marry the first man that walked into my life. I actually put some thought into it. Most people dont.

    • Dace says:

      I am really amazed by some people sticking to certain statements without thinking about them.
      First, you are supposed be married to one person and stay with them. See, my mother was married to an abusing husband for 26 years and refused to leave him because of her faith. He verbally and physically abused her for all these 26 years. She had 10 abortions because he refused to use protection or he just raped her. If she said no, he would just force himself onto her. Well, I would love to see you stay in a marriage like that based on your faith in bible.

      Second, Bible was written by a man. Either you believe it or not, regardless the fact that maybe God spoke to the man. And who decided that now Christians are going to follow only one part of the bible as it is right to ignore the fact that the old testament talked about killing and violence. It is hypocritical.

      Third, Priest preaching in the church learned from another priest and that priest learned from another priest…and not from GOD. Reading a book doesn’t tell you what GOD wants or what God intended for people to do. God teaches LOVE and not hate…

      I would love to see any Christian to stand up and with certainty say: YES, I know what God wants me to do.
      And please notice, I am not talking about FAITH, i am talking about organized religion that screams out laud but doesn’t actually follow Gods teaching

      • kc says:

        Agreed! The Bible was translated by men. King James had it commissioned to be translated. Read his history not so nice of a guy. God does not speak directly about homosexuality. To say that someone is sinning because they love differently than others is just wrong. Don’t judge someone because they “sin” differently than you.

    • portableatheist says:

      Where do you get the “fact” that 60% of people have genital herpes? Sources please.

  • annymorris says:

    I am not opposite the gay-marriage. But to my mind it is too much to let them have children. I am not saying they will be bad parents, I mean their children may be oppressed by other people, by other kids.

  • derek says:

    gays are people just like us. if you can tell me what is so horrid about gays i will be glad to see it. and by the way there is no difference on how homosexuals raise children. they just wont hang around those who dicriminate them. IM A LIBERAL!!!!!!!!!

  • lateg1959 says:

    I believe that we come to this world many time, and that we decided how and when we come to this life. I believe we decide to come as straight or gay, as a woman or as a man, way before we are born; it is all part of the human experience.

    Given that, I think that denying gay people the same legal rights that the straight people do enjoy is against the ultimate goal of every entity that compose the human spirit. I believe that we are going through a battle between what we all believe to be right, and the contamination of the current religions that pollute our life on earth.

    As human beings, we have to transcend the current religious beliefs, and look to make life on earth better for everyone, and get rid of any form of prejudice, regardless of social, legal, and/or mostly religious origin. If we continue to use religion as the basis for justice in America, then American are royally screwed up!

  • It’s too bad the U.S. is all tangled up with this topic. It is most definitely an act of discrimination. And it’s funny that something like this should happen in the Unites States…being so strong on freedom of expression and the rights of the indivudual in all other cases, not when it comes to gay marriage. What happened to the States? It seems to me that religion and common sense are confronted here; old views should be changed for new and logical views…I like Laurie Kendirick’s comment above…I like this way of seeing things…times have most definitely changed. Also, I’d like to add, concerning Anny Morris’comment, that just a couple of days ago I read that recent research showed that children of lesbian and gay parents tend to be more tolerant and less bound by gender stereotypes and assumptions. You can find full info in a book called “Gay and Lesbian Parents and their children.”

    Now I’ll quote:
    “It is striking, then, how comparatively rarely children are mentioned as an argument in favor of gay marriage. The issue is framed as a debate over equality and justice, of personal freedom and the relation of church and state, not about what is good for kids.” Lisa Belkin

    Thanks for opening this discussion space…I’ve really enjoyed it!

  • braidzy says:

    The points you raise here are essential in the argument regarding same-sex marriage. Regarding reproduction, I would postulate that infertile couples are allowed to marry, therefore why not same-sex couples?
    I have a full depth answer to the civil unions question upon my site.
    Take a look
    Thanks for a provocative page! x

  • ellipsis says:

    Dace, the fact that you’re talking about Christianity with absolutely no understanding is hilarious. To cure your ignorance, I’ll clear it up for you.

    When Christ came (the New Testament) He brought with him new laws. Humans were no longer supposed to cling to the violent ways of the Old Testament. We can learn from it, but we no longer are bound by its laws, and we certainly are not supposed to use violence like in those days. So when you say “who decided that now Christians are going to follow only one part of the bible as it is right to ignore the fact that the old testament talked about killing and violence” that would be Jesus. Son of God. You lose.

    As for the fact that your mother stayed married to an abusive thug, nothing is worse than that. I am sorry that this has happened, and I’m sorry that this probably crushed your view of God. But this situation is an example of where God’s grace comes into play. I believe that grace would prevail if your mother had called the police, left, or done anything other than take it. By this, I mean that she wouldn’t have gone to hell for leaving him against what the Bible states.

    Next, yes, the Bible was given to man by God, and is the word of God, and is infallible. You can believe anything to the contrary, but there is nothing in the world that can disprove this belief.

    The argument was posed earlier that homosexuality was only made a sin because earth needed to be populated, and that now we can forget about that rule. If it weren’t a rule of the New Testament, you might have a valid argument. But since the New Testament condemns homosexuality as well, your argument just imploded. At least in my eyes, since everyone else here won’t listen and hates me on principle.

    Does that last comment need explaining? Well then, all but one or two people disagree with what I say, so therefore all but one or two people hate me. That’s the way it is, right? I don’t agree with you, so therefore I hate you. This is why I don’t like gay people. You come off so wounded and hurt and like the world is against you because others disagree with you. Not everyone is going to agree with you. People are against you because of their own beliefs, morals, and values. Not because of ignorance. I could call gays ignorant because they can’t seem to grasp why people disagree with them.

    • fatr10u says:

      Based on your comment where you cite religion as proof for not allowing gay marriage, I’ll assume you have a very limited grasp of United States Law.

      The bible is not a legal text
      I will repeat in bold so you get the point

      This is because of separation of church and state, which exists in all 50 states. The bible is simply a book, whether or not you believe that this book contains the secrets to eternal bliss is entirely up to you, but you cannot expect everyone to follow your beliefs.

      If I picked up the nearest book to me, “The Da Vinci Code” and claimed that within its pages the secret to eternal life was hidden and that everyone had to do what the book said or they would die, I would be regarded as a madman. That is perfectly reasonable, why make any concessions for any text that is deemed to be religious? It is all illogical

      Before you say something about me being some godless heathen, I am Christian, but I think that kindness is far more important to God than the bible. I also feel that the bible is not “written by God” as you suggested. Whether or not you believe that is up to you, but you can’t make me believe what you believe.

      • ellypsis97 says:

        Where exactly did I use religion as a legal argument against gay marriage? Try reading the post before you reply. My argument is that since I am Christian, and I believe the Bible to be infallible, I do not condone gay marriage. My worldview is what I was talking about, not using Christianity to change the law.

        Let me repeat this in CAPS so you get the point.

        Next, I don’t expect everyone to follow my beliefs. Referring to my previous point, I never said that in my argument. This is an open forum. Therefore there is going to be disagreement. This doesn’t mean that I want to shove my ideals down other people’s throats.

        Again, so you get the point:


        Last, you’re a Christian, yet you don’t believe that the Bible was given to man by God? Kindness and grace are both very important, you’re right, but the Bible and its teachings are equally important. Now, before you take that comment out of context, I know it’s not my place to judge you. It’s just strange to hear a Christian give this particular view of things. Again, this doesn’t mean I want to impose my views onto you. (See above CAPS comment.)

        By the way, I have a degree in criminal justice. I know things about the law that you probably have never heard of. By assuming you know more than I do, and by both taking my comments out of context and blatantly stating things I didn’t say, you didn’t further any argument against me. Also, your argument about The Da Vinci Code is among the more absurd that I have ever heard. The Da Vinci Code is fiction. The Bible isn’t. Therefore, comparing it to a work of fiction is weak. If you think that someone stating to follow the Bible is mad, then you’re not really a Christian. What you’re doing is called blasphemy.

        So congratulations. Instead of discrediting me, all you did was make yourself look like a jackass, and moreover, get your points refuted with real logic and knowledge at every turn. Although I’m sure no one else here will see it that way. I mean, what do I know? I’m just a mad Christian trying to overthrow the separation of church and state. Right?

    • openminded521 says:

      Honestly, your view on homosexuality in regard to the Bible is just as jacked up. People who use the Bible to try and proclaim that homosexuality is a “sin” are seriously taking the text way too literally. For starters, God never preached hatred, he only preached love. He never sat their and spoke about how people who are LGBT will burn in hell. Look at the book of Leviticus; this book is probably the most common used text to downsize homosexuality. In it, people claim that God seems to speak of “many different rules and regulations that we are to follow if we are actually His children.” Let’s take a look at these more closely shall we:

      First, let’s go over what God actually says about homosexuality. “Any man that lays with a man as he does a woman is an abomination.” Let’s take this apart; abomination back then didn’t mean horrible or wicked, it meant unclean. So people blow this completely out of proportion when using this statement to fight homosexuality.

      Second, let’s look at some of the other “rules” that God states in Leviticus. “Any woman that is not a virgin on her wedding day should be taken to her father-in-law’s house and stoned to death.” Or how about this one, “Any woman that does not bear a child with her husband before he dies, should sleep with all of her husband’s brothers until she does.” Now you mean to tell me that you are going to sit there and condemn homosexuality based on the book of Leviticus and deface the Word of God and not condemn the rest of these rules apparently spoken by Jesus Himself? Your understanding is childish. Comprehend the Bible before you try and use it as a weapon against homosexuality.

      On a stronger note, take a look at what Jesus says in regard to the book of Leviticus in general. He states that it is a holiness code not even meant for Christians. That the rules that are stated in that book don;t even apply to follows of Christianity. People who use the Bible to fight homosexuality just hope that the people they are talking to don’t actually understand or know anything about it. For the population that actually does,I hope you are fighting these stupid remarks from people who have no idea what they talking about.

      To focus on what this blog is about for a second, homosexuals deserve marriage as a rite just as heterosexuals do. Leaving religion out of it, think about what the underlying themes of marriage are: love and procreation. I know what you’re thinking, but let me elaborate.

      Love is simple, no one can really argue that two men or two women can’t fall in love, that question is more can that union between them be recognized legally. To this question I answer, why not. Everyone is entitled to love and it’s something you can’t take away from anyone.

      Next, let’s look at this idea of procreation. Obviously, unless I have this biology thing completely wrong, two men or two women can’t have children. Let’s look at this more in depth. Think for a second if you were a heterosexual who was biologically born sterile. You fell in love with the opposite sex but was completely incapable of having children and were forced to adopt. You have love in your marriage, but no procreation; IS THAT ANY DIFFERENT THAN A HOMOSEXUAL COUPLE? The answer is no. Anyone who fights that will need to understand that if you condemn homosexuals for being “bad parents” you are changing the debate. Any person can be a parent, just because you have two dads or two moms doesn’t mean they will force their kids to be LGBT. They teach the morals of life just as any other human being.

      What about people who don’t want kids? Who literally choose not to procreate? Then you have love in your marriage AND the ability to have biological children and you are genuinely refusing to do so. YOU DON’T THINK THAT’S WORSE WHEN PUT NEXT TO HOMOSEXUALITY? People need to start looking outside of the box when they think about the LGBT community. There are many other issues that surround it and completely coincide with it, most of which involve the heterosexual community.

      Do me a favor people, don’t condemn something that you don’t understand or don’t even want to try and understand.

      One last comment, to the people that say they are afraid that legalizing homosexual marriage will cause a decrease in procreation and force others to be gay: YOU DON’T CHOOSE TO BE GAY PEOPLE and furthermore, the majority of this planet isn’t gay, so population control isn’t even an issue. Relax.

  • Linkai 2010 says:

    I’m living in China, a country in which very few people are pious belivers of religions. So neither do I follow any religion. But that doesn’t mean I don’t have faith. I do belive that as human beings we all live for a higher purpose. I would rather belive that we’re created by a higher power to serve higher purposes than to belive that we’re the finest “products” of evolution and live just for a living like other animals no this planet. I also belive in the goodness of humanity: love, tolerance and other human virtues. I know that these are what we should pursue and achieve in life because these are the good we share in common. Despite our differences in ethnic groups or religions, this innate tendency we have for such goodness prevails in every corner of the world. Denying these core values is denying ourselves. So if you belive in God, I think you won’t dissagree that these values are what He thinks good in us. In my imagination, God is impartial and selfless. He wants us to love each other rather than hate each other. So why would God separate a couple who love each other so much only because they’re both males or females? In China, you can think of a THOUSAND reasons against homosexuality such as being abnormal or unnatural or breaking social norms. None of them concerns religion. These reasons will lose their footings once ingnoracne is lifed. That’s why I’m confident that China will finally be among one of those contries that permit gay marriage. But once you bring up the Good Book and quote certain paragraphs and convince yourself they’re consionable, no one can talk you into any sense. You will just turn blind eyes to any scientific evidence, if you live to those sayings. I never intended to offend anyone or their belifs. I’m just saying that such beliefs in religious doctrines are going to be hinderance to the change of certain prejudices.The earth is not the center of the universe. The sun is.

  • This video sums up a Bible-based, traditional marriage perfectly:

  • I do open the Bible and read it, and it is pretty much silent on the issue of being Gay as we understand it today. Yes, there are some verses on sodomy, but mostly these are used in context of power and violence, as with Lot and the story of Sodom and Gemorrah.

    Jesus never spoke one word concerning being gay. He did speak of loving your neighbor and not judging others.

    The Bible has a stronger and clearer argument against Divorce, yet this is a widely accepted practice in our society and a civil matter. Divorce does much more social and emotional harm than gay marriage, yet is much less controversal.

    So whatever arguments, Biblical, social, or otherwise against gay marriage, then you should have a 100-fold reaction toward Divorcees.

    I saw love and yet love.. and if the love has left, please divorce in a civil manner 🙂

  • I just re-read the originally questions:

    (1) Does blocking gay marriage discriminate?
    Of course it does. Obviously gay folks are discriminated against and not offered the same legal status and protections afforded to opposite sex couples. I can not file taxes with my partner, leave my assests to him without tax penalties, creates confusion when it comes to power-of-attorny and medical care, cannot share partner benefits at work, and many other rights.

    (2) Are civil union the same thing?
    Currently, they are not. In my opinion, the word marriage should be reserved for religious ceremonies and civil unions for legal relationships. This would make all couples, same-sex or opposite-sex, have equal status. Currently, there are states which has separate regulations for civil unions vs. marriages. Also, it makes gay couples into second-class citizens, similar what was done in the Aparteid era with blacks with “separate but equal” laws concerning education, etc.

  • freedomizer says:

    Allow me to introduce another way of looking at this issue. On one side you will find those that want to push for the rights for gays to marry on the other side you find those that say allowing gays to marry will violate the sacred institution of marriage. You will see people very passionate about their position on each side (those people are extremists). Then there is this notion that the reasonable compromise is by allowing a civil union, which will grant many of the rights married hetero couples enjoy, but preserves the sanctity of marriage. Well lets first recognize what role the federal government can play in this issue. There are two amendments that cover this issue. The 9th Amendment ensure that simply because a right isn’t mentioned in the constitution it does not mean that a citizen should be denied that right. The 10th Amendment says that the power not delegated to the United Staes or prohibited by the constitution are reserved to the stes, or the people. Which in laymen means that since gay marriage is not covered in the constitution means that the states should be able to decided if this is lawful or not. This means that when the people vote upon this state by state the federal covernment can do nothing more than recognize that states decision. It’s my opinion that we should not be required to be licensed to marry. In fact the practice of issuing licenses for marriage didn’t happen until the mid 1800’s. Our first president George Washington himself did not have a marriage license when he wed Martha, so why should need one now? The state having the power to issue a license for marriage also grants them the power to create the criteria for marriage. Once upon a time licenses could not be obtained in many states for an interacial marriage. This issue is simple. Lets not fight for gay marriage, lets fight to get government out of our personal lives all together.

  • gregghierholzer says:

    Wow how weird to see all these folks talking about gays. like gays are a different species. Do any of you know a gay person? Let me give you some facts about me. I am gay. I male. I am legally married (in california no less). I live in America (see sentance above). And I love God the Father and Jesus. And for all that what does it get me? not a whole lot. I am hated, feared, 1/2 my family has disowned me. Friends have vanished into thin air at the sound of “I’m Gay”. and my employer will fire me if they find out i am gay. How am i doing so far. My partner and i have been together for 10 years, married for about 2. We are very much committed to one another. We do not plan to corrupt your sons or daughters, steal your husbands or brothers. We just want to be accepted for whom we are, two adults who love one another regardless of what everyone else thinks. And for those who throw bible scriptures at us. Well lets look at that for a minute. I have been told that there are approximately 7 citings of homosexuality in the bible (right?) but how many citings do they mention on adultery (about 300). So why is everyone worried about who i sleep with (the 1 person) when your friends, husband, brother, sister or whomever can be committing adultery and you don’t even know or you chose to turn the blind eye. Oh and one more thing on the bible. The bible was written by men inspired by the word of God. (right!) well guess what the Ten Commandments were written by God, and as far as I can see there is NOTHING in there about homosexuality, being gay. Nope sorry there are no little astricks there.

    (eminime has a good song lyric) “have you ever been discriminated against I have” Ironic because he hates too much. A lot of people do. Why can’t well just get along. feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, and worry less about what happens in another persons private quarters.

    Good Night.


    • MacGregor says:

      I dont buy anything you’re saying.
      You will not get fired for being gay. The idea that ur so hated for being gay is outdated and only exacerbates your already cartoonish version of what you think Conservative and Americans are. I have gay friends but am very conservative and against gay marriage. That doesnt mean i hate them by any means.
      Good people deplore infidelity more than you think, no one turns a blind eye. But often infidelity in marriages are personal and those people arent trying to get broad scale social changes passed through legislation that would inversly affect the social norms of our country.
      Good luck to you but you are way off on this topic. Social matters matter in this country, they always have.

      • gregghierholzer says:

        actually i don’t think i am way off on this matter. As i am in the US military and the WILL and HAVE fired people for being gay.

        If you are not gay, which you say you aren’t then i really don’t think you have anything to judge by other then what you see and read. because you can freely chose to love and marry who you want. I can’t (not yet anyway) but guess what there is NO ONE in this world that i hate. so i wished that everyone could get along and let each other live in peace.

        and may you too live in peace and much happiness.

  • You can be fired for being gay in the US. Most states have no protection against this. There is a bill in the works in Congress to put an end to such discrimination, but so far it does not have enough support.

    But I guess we should feel lucky in the US. In some countries, they kill you or lock you away for life for being gay.

    As far an infidelity, just look at how many are quick to turn a blind eye to Tiger Woods. Where are groups like Focus on the Family and all these anti-gay, pro-marriage groups now? Nowhere, because they are just anti-gay groups and the pro-marriage bs is just their cover and way of fear-mongering moderates to side with them on political issues.

  • gregghierholzer says:

    To those who said that I can’t get fired for being gay. well obviously you didn’t look at my picture very well because as far as I know the Don’t Ask Don’t tell Policy of the US Military is still in effect.

  • voicethesoul says:

    Are civil unions and partnerships a good alternative to gay marriages: of course not. Marriage is universal. What happens to a civil union if I cross the state border? Where are the hospital visitation rights? It’s comparing apples to oranges. It’s an alternative- such a compromised alternative.

  • caboy says:

    Maybe we’re being too technical here. Why does it have to be called “marriage”? So call it whatever you want, but everyone deserves equal rights. It is our right as people, just by existing, to have equal rights. Call it Civil Union or whatever you would like, choose any word! But as long as gays have the same rights, I think all if fair. But it can be looked at the same way as women’s rights to vote. Just because they were born female they don’t deserve that right? Well apparently someone came up with the idea that women were just people and they deserved to have those rights just as anyone else in the United States. So whatever you call it, gays are still people, they have no impediments that, because of that fact, should refuse them the rights to anything just because of what you feel right with.

  • davidwperry says:

    There is currently much speculation about the arrival of gay “marriage”. Three things need to be kept in mind.

    First, marriage is the union of a man and a woman and is a universal social arrangement and not the preserve of any particular religion. It exists to provide a stable setting for male to female genital sexual intercourse and the children to which such intercourse gives rise.

    Second, if gay marriage is brought in, will there in the interests of equality be legislation to the effect that lack of consummation of a marriage no longer provides grounds for declaring the marriage null and void? That must surely be the case if same sex couples are to be described as married, since by definition they are incapable of male to female genital intercourse.

    Third, those campaigning for gay marriage cannot succeed without redefining what is meant by marriage. It would be helpful if Parliament were to agree the definition of marriage before any legislation is introduced about same sex “marriage”. This will bring a welcome degree of transparency to the debate.

  • In my opinion I view a ban on gay marriage is discrimination (I say this in light of the recent ruling on Prop 8). The basis for my assertion is that whether gay couples marry has no impact on the lives of those not part of this sacred union. Politically, we as a people are generally apathetic towards most issues, so why does this apathy not extend to same-sex marriage?

    If it doesn’t effect us and affords everyone the same rights, then what can be so wrong with it? Perhaps I am avoiding the true nature of the question of “what is marriage?” but, in my opinion, the only reason to keep gay couples from marrying is founded on the basic principle of discriminating people that you don’t understand/accept.

  • Dave says:

    I always get upset that the gay community who fights with so much passion to stop the world from imposing their beliefs on them doesn’t bat an eye at the fact that they are imposing THEIR beliefs on the majority and trying to force the change in definition of an age old institution “Marriage”. It is common knowledge that the majority of people everywhere will tell you that their understanding of what a “Marriage” is is the union of a man and a woman. the majority. For MANY MANY years. This is the accepted definition. So I have two things to say to the gay community. 1) I support your need for equal treatment in the law and although I do not condone your lifestyle I accept it exists and your right to live that way if you choose, you should have equal protection in things like benefits, taxes, inheritence, visitation rights, etc. BUT you have no right to change the definition of Marriage and force YOUR opinion and vision on the world. Call it something else and I am in your corner, attack an age old instituion and try to make it something it was never intended to be because it suits you is as wrong and as great an injustice as you claim to be a victim of. The fact that the gay community won’t move off this mark makes me really question if their motives are equal treatment or forcing their opinion of “marriage” on the rest of the world.

    • portableatheist says:

      So the “gay community” should change the name of what they want (marriage), even though it amounts to the same thing because of YOUR definition of marriage? If you want to espouse about the sanctity of marriage then I suggest you look at how much Hollywood and the national public has already trashed the concept of marriage before you start defining it. And as for definitions, YOUR definition is the American definition, and not an internationally accepted one at all. Many cultures permit multiple wives, which mean that those wives are (technically) married TO EACH OTHER. hey. Look. women married. and everyone’s still all right.

      What you are asking for is called “separate yet equal”, and the Supreme court already ruled that it is unconstitutional. I have a whole article dedicated to that posted here:

      give it a read, there’s more against your argument than you realize.

    • Yes, and perhaps the definition of marriage needs redefining. With 50% of first marriages ending in divorce, this is hardly a definition to be proud of or something that should be so harshly defended.

      And no one would be imposing their beliefs on the masses of society, in reality whether a gay union is called a marriage or not will not impact the rest of society. If it doesn’t concern you and won’t affect you, there’s no need to try and stop people from enjoying the title of “marriage.”

  • gaycarboys says:

    I will not rest until we have gay marriage NOt civil union. I won’t accept second best.

  • gaycarboys says:

    Oh I forgot to add that my boyfriend and I (please do not use the word partner around me) have been together longer than most of our married friends.

  • “BUT you have no right to change the definition of Marriage and force YOUR opinion and vision on the world.”

    The fact that this outright reversal of the situation is actually heartfelt and taken seriously by people like the reader who’s comment I’m quoting is perhaps the real crux of the issue. They mistake changing the LEGAL definition so as to treat equally all citizens (something which hitherto wasn’t much of an issue because openly gay people were hard to find)with forcing this definition on them.
    Everyone needs to understand that legal definitions do not coincide with everyday definitions. Gay marriage being legally recognized does not prevent those who oppose it as viewing it as immoral, or a perversion of the traditional definition of marriage, as they argue now. The only thing that would change would be equal treatment under the law for homosexuals, which even those who disagree with homosexuality would have to concede is the right thing to do.

  • sean says:

    I am doing research on how the majority of Christians are viewed by homosexuals. I hope that I do not word anything in a way that offends anyone. I am looking for people who are willing to discuss issues and actions from a respectful honest viewpoint. I am not willing to get into morality debates, I am merely trying to gather how each side of this important issue views the other. My intent is to be better educated on how to show Christ’s love to each member of our society. I sincerely hope that there can be a dialog without hostility in any form.

  • It’s good to have dialogue. I truly bear no ill will against any gay people, I would go out of my way to show my kindness, yet at the same time I cannot accept gay marriage as the equal to hetrosexual marriage, it isn’t equal. Two husbands getting married? Where’s the bride? Two brides? Where’s the groom? Can I be plain? Anal intercourse (men) and strapped on penises? And we are to teach our children that this is equal to the relationship between a bride and groom – a husband and a wife? I find that ludicrous. I realize that no matter how loathesome I find homosexuality, it’s none of my business what people do – it’s a free country. But equating same sex marriage with hetrosexual marriage – in other words redefining marriage is off the charts.

    2. Are civil unions and partnerships a good alternative to gay marriages?

    The end of the debate could be that gay people just simply find a unique name for their unique unions, something that defines them and is able to encompass legal rights and leave the definition of marriage exclusive to male and female- the way it has been since the beginning of time.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading Open Forum: Gay Marriage at Good Morning, Mr. Simon.


%d bloggers like this: