My younger brother is gay. Gay as laughter. Gay as the day is long. One of the finest moments in my life, and one of the greatest compliments anyone has ever paid me, was the day he felt safe to come out to me. He’s in his mid-30s now, but he’ll always be my little brother. And man, I love that kid. He’s brilliant, he’s funny, and he’s kind. And he just married a phenomenal man.
I was always predisposed to like his husband because, y’know, he’s my brother’s partner and therefore has automatic status in my heart. The wonderful bonus is that I really like him. He’s brilliant, he’s funny, and he’s kind. He’s a cool dude to hang out with. He also stood by my brother like a rock when my brother had a life-threatening cancer that cost him his left eye.
They married in May. It was a wonderful ceremony in which I was honored to stand by my brother, supporting him in his vows. My eyes teared up like they always do at weddings. I had the joy of watching two people commit to a lifetime together. It filled my heart.
Folks started posting photos from the wedding on Facebook, and I proudly reposted photos of the ceremony (with me looking awesome in my new suit, of course). Shortly after that, I received this message from a FB friend:
“Hey David, I am removing you from my friends list…sorry man, that latest post is way over the top! Homosexuals joining in “Holy” matrimony…I don’t think so??? The Holy Bible speaks out against homosexuality and speaks highly of Holy matrimony between a man and a woman. It’s nothing more than a slap in the face to those who choose God’s Word, for homosexuals to join in a Holy marriage. I’m only defriending you so I don’t have to look at your anti-God stuff anymore…nothing personal!”
Wow.
This came from a man I used to work with. A man I respect in his dedication to his family, and in his desire to live a moral and ethical life. A man with whom I have had some very interesting religious debates. He has become a Baptist preacher since we last spoke in person, and I suppose that makes this message unsurprising.
But, I was still surprised. I was taken aback. I needed a moment. I was hurt.
I was inclined to hurl some expletives in his direction.
But, only for a moment. He’s not really that important of a person in my life. I had actually at times grown rather tired of his Facebook postings…I don’t have a great need for fundamentalist dogma in my day. So, on some level, good riddance.
I sent him a letter at his church, expressing my disappointment in his withdrawal. I had a few friends read the letter before I sent it, to make sure that it didn’t contain too much bile. I’m not surprised that I haven’t heard back from him.
The situation got me thinking: What if this hadn’t been about my brother’s wedding, but about MY wedding? What if it hadn’t been from a distant friend, but from a beloved family member?
Ouch.
How many millions of gay kids (and adults) have had that exact thing happen to them? How many millions more will in the future?
I’m sorry.
I’m sorry for that pain. I’m sorry for that rejection. I’m sorry for that isolation.
I’m straight. Straight as a yardstick. Straight as an arrow. I am in your corner. If I could take on that pain for you, I would.
I love you.
If you’re gay, I think that’s wonderful, and I’m truly happy for you. I wish you all the love and joy in the world.
If you’re straight, I think that’s wonderful, and I’m truly happy for you. I wish you all the love and joy in the world. And I charge you, I charge you to imagine the above scenario played out with YOU as the target of rejection. Imagine the people closest to you telling you, essentially, “You are fundamentally flawed and I want nothing to do with you.” Our LGBTQ brothers and sisters face this everyday. Please don’t forget that.
The poor, misguided soul is no longer in my life. That’s okay. My brother and his husband still are. I just hung out with my brother a few weeks ago, and it was a blast. He’s brilliant, he’s funny, and he’s kind. I couldn’t be prouder to call him my brother. I love him, and love wins, period.
Don’t forget to “Like” us on Facebook here.
Image by Ono Kono.
allydavidstevens
apeene
blazingbeau
guestposting600
kzottarelli
Ono Kono
robw77
thomsense
evoL = 
Well if we see this in an biological perspective, then we will realize we all are made to mate with each other(driven by hormones of of course) just to reproduce.(just like other mammals).
And, I don’t see in which natural way will gay people reproduce…
So, even when the society accepts gay marriage; what’s the use…
the sole purpose of marriage(mating) is lost..!!!
Hi Paul,
Do you really think that the sole purpose of marriage is mating (procreation)? If that’s the case, then should we also be refusing marriage to elderly couples, or infertile couples?
Thanks,
Dave
Except that neither of those examples requires us to actually alter the definition of marriage. You would need verification of infertility to rule out marriage. In the case of gay marriage it’s pretty obvious. In my view, gay marriage is the victory of Hollywood’s version of marriage over that of the church. Nice, eh?
So Mary, if someone is getting married and they make it clear they don’t want children, they shouldn’t be allowed to get married, is that what you’re saying.
I think marriage sometimes end mating LOL JK! Just trying to lighten up the tone.
This is in response to your comment about marriage stopping mating…I think it’s pretty damn funny. NSFW.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vx_MpRP39as
now that was funny and partly true! LOL
Shall we start to drive holes through this argument?
1. Marriage does not equate with mating
2. There are many, many straight couples that are unable to “naturally” reproduce.. do you negate their relationships?
3. marriage does not equate with mating
4. There are certainly ways that gays can reproduce, it may not happen in a bed like some straights, but it’s there.
5. marriage does not equate with mating.
Hi Paulsamuelvishesh, From my perspective, the more advanced an animal species is, the less it is in existence for the sole reason to “mate and reproduce”. Certainly there are values we place on humans to be more than that. It is why we have musicians, artists, and thousands of other human purposes.
In terms of forming families, we even have the capacity to form more effective families than biological mating and producing would allow on its own.
My sons were born to drug addicts that would have killed them. The ability to mate and the ability to parent obviously have nothing to do with one another. My partner and I and our bonding were there to be there for our sons, even though we were not the ones who gave them DNA.
So, I would say that the USE of OUR gay marriage was more valuable than many heterosexual marriages. I think you may want to re-evaluate your perspective.
@dave,@david,@robw77 :
. you guys have really gave me a lot to think about… Thanks…
Maybe I should rethink the statement I made.
It is true that marriage means a lot more than just mating.
But tell me this, why do you people become gay(they aren’t born gay of course)?…
rofl… I’m assuming that comment was made purely in jest. “become gay”… There is so much solid science out there to assert that homosexuality, or any degree thereof, is a ‘born this way’ condition that to make that comment other than in jest just can’t be considered.
Ya in a way @david you are correct…
maybe I should rethink my values in this matter…
(and I am not joking around, I’m just speaking out my views without any masking)
I’m sorry this stupid comment I made…
=(
The biggest single benefit of open debate is the opportunity to hear the viewpoint of another and to consider that viewpoint. Consideration may or may not change your stance, but at least being open to that thought is an excellent step.
Where we fail to listen, and fail to consider, we do ourselves and those around us an injustice. So well done there.
Hi Paul. I am guessing you are joking…but in case you are serious….. I did choose my sexual orientation. I CHOSE to be heterosexual… for several years, that was my choice. Unfortunately, it nearly drove me to suicide, because the fact was, I was not straight , I was and am gay. And trying to live as something you are not is a form of death.
So, I did not become gay…. I was delivered to the planet that way.
Anyways thank you all (@david,@dave,@robw77)…
You guys just gave an good understanding of this sub.
And now I’m really sorry that I posted such a terrible comment like this…
Please forgive me…
Paul,
I am super impressed by your ability to reflect on what you said and to hear feedback from others. Strong work, brother! Hope for humanity!
Thanks for your input!
Dave
Great post, David! As always very thought provoking, and intellectually written! Thanks you for your support & friendship. – Brian
Thank YOU, my friend! I appreciate you stopping by.
This is so touching, so lovely. I just can’t understand why some folks just can’t live and let live. Everyone should have a brother as kind as you.
Thank you so much for standing on your brothers side and thank you for the lovely letter that touches all our lives since all of us know someone that is gay. It always amazes me that so called Christians use a couple of old testament scriptures out of context to disapprove of gays. If they are going to follow the old testament then follow it all, you can’t pick and choose which scriptures you want to follow. However, if you believe in Jesus Christ and that he came to earth then you know that his arrival brought forth the new law (the new testament) and therefore, the old testament is just a history book, so to speak. Like I mentioned, there are only a couple of scriptures that the so called christians use to hate, discriminate and belittle gays. What they fail to do is follow the over 500 times that LOVE is used in the scriptures. Love everyone! We aren’t all suppose to be the same. That’s what makes the world interesting as we are all God’s children and if LOVE is mentioned so many times, that should be the message we spread and share with one another. Unfortunately, your friend missed the boat and it sounds like his loss because you sound like a great person filled with Love and not hate.
One last comment: There’s no where in the scriptures that God grants us the power to speak on his behalf. So when people hold up signs that say “God Hates…..” that is blasphemy. They are taking upon themselves the voice of God without authority. I sort of feel sorry for them because they know not what they do.
Your “one last comment” is the most important point of all from a theological standpoint, be they of any of the Abrahamic faiths. The truly faithful of Christianity would realize that very thing: to assume to know the will of God is itself blasphemy. How dare the Pope come forward to say gay people are not fully developed people! Catholic dogma be damned to assume the creation of God is flawed! I welcome anyone to convince me otherwise.
The simplest of scriptures and faith, the fundamentals I was first taught in Sunday School; 1. Love one another. 2. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. 3. Judge not, lest ye be judged.
Too many people forget those fundamentals and judge in the name of God, speak in the name of God, and most tragically, hate in the name of God.
In a way God’s creation is flawed. He gave us free will and He gave us the ability to hate. I am a Christian, but often wonder why he gave us those two ‘gifts’.
You’re right Norman. Jesus said to love one another, can’t find anywhere he said ‘unless …..’
@KievJoy: Then God is flawed, for we are “made in His image”. I submit to you that God is made in OUR image; just look how these religious zealots claim to speak for “god” / YHWH / Allah and claim there god hates the same things they do. Isn’t that ironic?
You’re right that we can’t speak as if we are God. Nowhere in the NT does it say anything about hate. You think some on here are bad. Look up Westboro Baptist Church. Nothing of love in there. According to them, God hates everyone and everything. He doesn’t. Jesus message was love, love and more love. I had to come out of their page after 15 minutes cos I felt like spewing up. The real Baptist Church are trying to find if there is some way they can take ‘Baptist’ out of their title. Because of people like them, doesn’t mean we are all like it.
we are sort of going through the same thing just religion has not been brought into the picture. Just that someone close does not believe Cheryl and I should get married…they are “against” it. That hurts but opinions are opinions.
Of course it hurts, especially when it is someone close. Whatever the reasoning, they are saying your relationship is less than and should be less than, if not worse, because you are two women. Sometimes the best one can do is communicate how that hurts. Primary to the concept of a wedding is its public nature; a community is acknowledging and willing to support you both in your commitment. Take comfort in those who are willing to be there for you.
We have communicated…it’s Cheryl’s father…said he will never get “it” and believes we have not chosen to be gay but he disagrees with us choosing to get married after 15 years of being together….we have many who support and not judge….but having her dad not “get it”….makes me sad for Cheryl.
Was 05 Nov 2005 for us. If/when we get marriage equality in Australia, I want it backdated!!!! hehe
totally! 7 years wow…Big Congrats…we have been together 15 years…getting married seems right…well, Cheryl proposed and I said why not? LOL 😉
Reblogged this on Cheryl & Leslie's and commented:
we are sort of going through the same thing just religion has not been brought into the picture. Just that someone close does not believe Cheryl and I should get married…they are “against” it. That hurts but opinions are opinions.
That type of opinion always hurts. When my partner and I decided to do something we had to have a commitment ceremony (because same sex marriages had recently been “legally defined” out of the equation in Australia) so we did it smack-dab in the middle of the Brisbane Botanic Gardens.. invited guests and all and a sit down reception back at the Gardens restaurant. Not one person we invited declined (apart from the Prime Minister of Australia who did officially decline – but then he was the one who rushed to amend the Marriage Act to ensure we would be illegal). Keep your heads high and brush right past those ignorant attitudes!
It’s Cheryl’s dad….and yep…we have so much to be proud of and will carry on and look forward….thanks…Congrats on your celebration! Aug 14 2013 for us!
I grew up in a Christian family and have a lesbian sister whom we love unconditionally, the way Jesus said to do with everyone. What I find so weird is the people who hunt and pick through the Bible to find things they can use to keep from loving people. They call themselves “Christians” but use the Old Testament almost exclusively. Jesus taught complete inclusiveness. He said to love everyone and not: “Love thy neighbor as thyself except in the following cases: if he’s gay, if he’s a different color or speaks a different language, if he crossed into Judea without getting a parchment from the Judean government, If he’s a lot poorer, if he doesn’t bathe regularly, if he likes people you don’t like, etc. etc. etc.”
Jesus was a well known Jewish Rabbi. He wasn’t a Christian, not ever. If you are one of those who think only Christians can get into Heaven then you won’t see Jesus there! Instead you will spend eternity in a mutual admiration society those members keep tabs on each other to see if they really ought to be able to be there. So if you wind up in that Heaven you won’t find any kindness or forgiveness there either. Have fun.
I just love how idiots try to justify their hatred of things by quoting the Bible and ‘Gods word’, there is NO evidence that the Bible is Gods word or that anything in it is even relevant to today, it was written centuries ago and noone follows any other traditions that were around back then because they are seen as irrelevant….and thats exactly what the BIBLE is in this day and age…IRRELEVANT!!….take just one letter away from the BIBLE and it becomes BILE…
The original stories about Jesus and the letters that were written to the early churches were copied and re-copied many times. Scribes made mistakes and sometimes changed words or phrases to clarify or even to change passages. We do not have any original scripture. Also back then there was no division between words. Read “Godisnowhere” and it can be “God is now” here or “God is nowhere.” Later translators had to guess at a lot of it. Different parts were in Greek, Coptic (Egyptian), Syriac and many other languages. ALL OF THE ORIGINAL LETTERS AND THE ORIGINAL BOOKS BY THE APOSTLES HAVE BEEN LOST FOR MANY CENTURIES. NOT A SINGLE ONE SURVIVED. THe four gospels we love so much were written nearly 200 years after jesus lived. What if you had to write a biography of one of America’s early heroes from the oral stories you heard and there was nothing on paper about him. That’s what the gospels are like. The Bible was translated into Latin and then from Latin back into Greek. It was hand-copied for many centuries, until the inventing of the printing press, with intentional and unintentional mistakes and additions and subtractions by many copiers. Finally a Latin Bible was printed. A Biblical Scholar was making a Greek translation from the oldest manuscripts available. Another man, Eusebius, rushed his Greek translation into print using only one copy of the scriptures and where there wern’t parts of them, making up his own translations. His book got to market first and sold a lot of copies. Biblical scholars have found over a thousand places where at least a word was wrong and some places where whole parts were wrong. Unfortunately when the Bible was put into English, another rush job, that was the Bible they translated to English.
Two things, John walked with Jesus, he didn’t write his gospel 200 years later. There is some dispute about the Gospel of Mathew, some say he is the tax collector who walked with Jesus some say he isn’t. As for the translation of the Bible being done in a rush. I have a friend who is a Bible translator, it has taken her and her team over seven years to translate it in Crimean Tartar language and it still isn’t finished, although they are getting near the end. Hardly a rush job.
I am amused at the bible that proclaims the sanctity of marriage what about the sanctity of till death do us part or is it the sanctity of divorce and as many mistresses as the bible prescribes. Hypocrites selective reading & interpretation. Religion is rearing its ugly head by trumpeting hatred at full swing. We are sliding into another middle age with perverted religious thinking.
I think you are praiseworthy to love and stand by your brother in good time & bad, my family kept me at arms length except when they needed my help. Thanks for sharing your story.
Fred, try to take a day or two to read all the threads. Many of us Christians on here do not spew bile or hatred. I love you attitude though, if you don’t understand it, try to make it look stupid.
Thank you for standing true.
Reblogged this on Trang chủ.
Hello. I wanted to thank you for this thoughtful and supportive post. As a gay man, I am often perplexed at the arguments against gay marriage. My favorite one is that gay marriage diminishes marriage — but has anyone really looked at marriage these days? I mean, I think it’s wonderful that Newt Gingrich can enjoy marriage over and over and over again, but my marriage to my partner of nearly 25 years is a great danger to the moral fabric of this country? Glad you held on strong to your values and and your family. Congrats on being part of the September FP crowd. I’m in good company. Cheers!
Hello. As a gay man, I wanted to thank you for this thoughtful and supportive post. My partner and I have been together for 25 years — and married a few years ago. I am always perplexed at the argument against same sex marriage. Many often say that it diminishes marriage — but has anyone looked at the state of marriage these days. I mean, I’m happy that Newt Gingrich can enjoy marriage so many times (because that doesn’t diminish marriage) — but my relationship does??? I’m glad to have an ally in you. Congrats on being part of the Freshly Pressed crowd. Cheers!
What a wanker (your so-called friend, that is) and good on you for dealing with it so calmly. Best wishes to your brother and his husband: respect to anyone who’s prepared to make such an awesome commitment. Peace and love, mate 🙂
The bible also commanded men to never cut their hair but I guess that one doesn’t count. Your blog is wonderful and I plan to share it. Your brother is blessed to have you in his life.
Pingback: Freshly Pressed: Editors’ Picks for September 2012 | Exotic Motors
Pingback: Freshly Pressed: Editors’ Picks for September 2012 | Clube do Facebook
Hello, I commend you for standing up your brother, sister, etc. I feel everyone has a role in life and you can either be a crusader, a pragmatist, or an asshole. I think people should tone down the nasty -hate oriented rhetoric of the last few decades and stifle their hatred instead of spewing it. My only position against this movement is that they want to label their unions as marriage. I do not care if they want to join up and be treated as a family unit but I prefer that this be called a same sex union rather than a marriage. A marriage is a union between a man and a woman. This is what the bible teaches us… anything else is not a marriage but a same sex union. My old fashioned Christian upbringing has more to do with this than semantics.BUt stop the hatred and embrace everyone in the common good ….do not consider any of the following when reaching out you hand… we are all the same just male or female and color, ethnicity, sex and the like should have no bearing on whether someone is good …. Martin Luther King Jr. Said it best in his famous “I have a Dream” speech …. HE said I want my children judge by their character and not by the color of their skin ……….Character, integrity, and ethics should be that for which we judge a person on whether they should be in our life not the other crap.
What a scary thought… gay people want equality. How dare they. Oh, and equality means the right to call our relationships exactly what you call yours. If you agree to drop the word “marriage” then so will we. But until then marriage is as much a reflection of a couple’s commitment AS IT IS A REFLECTION OF SOCIETY’S ACCEPTANCE OF THAT COMMITMENT. (Sorry, had to do that or it gets lost.) To accept a ‘alternative’ nomenclature simply devalues the relationship in society’s eyes. Not good enough.
And find the Bible verse for me that says marriage is only between a man and a woman. ‘cos I can’t find one.
The “Bible” is not an authority on life. Tangible fact is. And the tangible facts in this case is that two men love each other. Marriage is first and foremost a *legal* arrangement; your religious trappings are superfluous and have no bearing whatsoever on any legal arrangement. So if a *legal* heterosexual marriage can be called a marriage, then so can a homosexual marriage, providing it is legal.
It is to be a statement on Christian Life and is full of anecdotes and discussion about sins and evils. I advised that all people are equal and that hatred has no place in the world. I am not against two people getting together but if they are the same sex then that union is not marriage and NEVER should be it is what it is a same sex UNION. We have legal definitions and the legal definition of marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Miriam Webster’s Main definition is:
(1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law
Reference:
1. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage
Allow me to post the entirety of Miriam Websters Definition that you so kindly linked to.
Definition of MARRIAGE
1
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock
c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2
: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3
: an intimate or close union
Seems it has a broader definition that originally implied? Or is it just me?
Don’t know if it still stand good in England, but I can remember that if someone lived with someone as in marriage it was considered a ‘common law’ marriage after a number of years. Sorry, but can’t remember how many.
Thankfully the Bible isn’t the be all and end all of marriage, there are many other religions and cultures in the world, so whether it is called marriage should not be up to one religion to define. Stop the hate, definitely, but Christians do not have a monopoly on what marriage is or is not.
Marriage predates the bible and exists in nearly every culture, Christian or not. This is a false argument.
Xgempie, you said “this is what the Bible teaches us..” but now you’re quoting the Dictionary? Can’t find that verse that supports your argument? While you’re talking unions, did you notice that the definition was “a state of being united..”?
And if we’re going that way, don’t forget that a dictionary definition is the reflection of the social standards, which is why the online Oxford also defines marriage as: “(in some jurisdictions) a union between partners of the same sex.”
Your argument is fundamentally untenable. Try not to put others down to hold yourself up?
I gave an opinion of what I think marriage is based on how I was raised—I am not against gay people I have some in my family what I am against is someone or group trying to imply they have a right to be married … I am stating they have a right to a civil union not marriage. The original definition from the Webster dictionary is the first definition over time societal demands have weakened the intended definition to mean more than the bible has intended. A civil union were they would have the same rights -separate but equal —- marriage should be left for what the original definition intended. not some pressure driven crap that someone in society directs it to be. Just as in the word gay—used to mean happy and carefree…. now it has other not originally intended meanings that have stuck because someone or group in society has labelled them as such. Stop changing the meaning of words and create some new words not redirecting old words to fit your definition.
And an afterthought, since xgempie was so keen on “legal” definitions. Have to ask, is your wife content being a mere chattel, disqualified from voting, and unable to own property because she is nothing but property herself? No?
Oh…. those legal definitions must have changed over time then. Again, untenable.
oh for goodness sakes… “stop changing”. Are you even hearing yourself? Or taking any acknowledgement that marriage has changed radically over time and that your current definition is nothing more than the latest incarnation? Look to your own Bible. 1Kings 11:1-3. Solomon had *700 wives*.
And then you come out with “separate but equal” as a justification for civil unions. What? This straight after quoting MRK?????
Let’s follow xgempie back to the original definition !!! Get me some of those 700 wives !!!!!
“The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn’t mean that God doesn’t love heterosexuals. It’s just that they need more supervision. ”
—Lynn Lavner
Why shouldn’t it be called and treated as marriage. As a hetrosexual my husband and I married to commit to each other for life through marriage. Why shouldn’t a gay couple be able make that same commitment
Marriage as defined by your Bible? You mean the one that condones polygamy, the very thing you religious conservatives claim you’re so afraid might happen next if same-sex MARRIAGE becomes legal. What does your Bible’s definition of marriage have to do with the government recognizing that two men or two women are capable of the same commitments and therefore afforded the same respect as a heterosexual relationship. We call that relationship “marriage” in the civil law sense, and civil law does not recognize your “god” as an authority. I frankly don’t believe your “god” exists anymore than Zeus or Odin. In civil law there are civil rights, and being afforded respect for my family and my children (yes, I have children) in the eyes of the government (not your church) is my civil right. I pay the same taxes as you; I therefore am entitled to the same rights. That includes the right to be free of the rules of your mythological “god”. You prove to me that your “god” exists, and then we can talk about what gives “Him” the right to tell me, a sentient being of free will, what to do or not do. I didn’t agree to “his” sovereignty anyway, seeing how I don’t even believe “he” exists.
Do without our God’s rules then. That means people can murder, cheat you out of you property, steal, lie about you in court. Oh forgot there won’t be no court cos there wont be any rules to break. Most, although not all or today’s law is based on the 10 commandments. You moan about people making fun of and running down people who support gay marriage, i am a Christian but don’t. But it’s OK if you don’t believe in God to run us down cos we do and at times, try to make us look stupid. Like your double standards.
I don’t think we need to attack religion here. I just want to point out that for many people the Bible isn’t the be all and end all. It may be for you, but morals can exist without the Ten Commandments. Law, Order and Morals are not exclusive to the Bible. I also daresay people get away with murder, theft, and plenty lie (Christians or not, hand on the Bible or not) in court on a day to day basis. That is another debate, however, about our deeply flawed legal system and can lead to numerous threads on its own merit.
There is no evidence that religion correlates to societal harmony. In fact, studies show that the less religion among a population, the less crime. Your argument that the Bible has something to do with civility is baseless.
KievJoy, it doesn’t mean any of that. It doesn’t mean people can do as they please if your bible is suddenly lost forever in the dust bins of time. Perfectly reasonably people will still agree that things like murder, rape, theft, etc are not acceptable behavior within society. Your Bible does not have a corner on morality. Reason does.
If every copy of the Bible were burned there are still enough people who know it chapter and verse for them to get together to write it again and much of the Bible is committed to memory. If you want to not believe it, that is your choice, but many of us on here and around the world have had too much happen to not believe it. Stop trying to persuade Christians we’re stupid to believe it, we know better.
KievJoy… you can be committed in the eyes of God.. I don’t believe there is a god. BUT.. I want society to recognise my relationship as being equal in all ways.. and a “civil partnership” doesn’t cut it. Not when “marriage” is actually a State institution and not a religious one. (Just take a deep breath and go check.. people are legally married under Statute, the religious ceremony holds no legal standing.) The above is just for grounding. Thanks that you appreciate that we do all want to be treated equally.. just leave your mythology out of it please.
MaryLS.. to clarify your history for you.. marriage (apart from that small part post, say, Victorian era) has NEVER been about procreation. People have had children and families regardless. One of it’s biggest uses, for a much longer period, has been the protection of wealth. Marriage in the English/European history was restricted to the upper classes to It served to protect lineage and the distribution of wealth after death. And don’t forget that a woman was also a chattel, owned by her husband, and could not legally own property of her own. Without a husband to support her she could, and sometimes did, starve to death!
What marriage IS about is public, legal and societal recognition of a bond between persons. And that applies REGARDLESS of whether you apply the Christian god, the Jewish god or the Islamic god.. it even applies in faiths that are multi-theistic. So yes, god forbid (pun intended), marriage will still mean something in 50 years from now when we all have equality, and the fuss is long forgotten. ( ..oh, and you might want to refer to my comment above about marriage being a legal and not a religious institution…..)
It depends on which country you are in. In England a marriage in a recognised church, (Anglican, Baptist, Roman Catholic) is recognised by the state.
You stop talking to Christians as if we’re stupid for believing and we might stop talking to you as if you think youself judge, jury and executioner.
United Kingdom – Marriage Act 1837
Feel free to apologise at any time.
I didn’t say they could marry gays, I said a marriage is recognised by the state if the couple are married by a minister of certain churches. I had better be cos my marriage licence says I was married by the Anglican priest in Becontree, Essex and that’s also recognised by the state.
Do try to read carefully KievJoy.. I said nothing about gay marriage.. what I DID say (expanded out for you) was that marriages performed by religious institutions are only valid BECAUSE they have been given authority by the State under statute. Without that statute authorising the action it has no legal validity.
AND marriage is about societal recognition. If I get this right, your argument appears to be that marriage has only been recognised for the last two generations (100 years – that’s all that counts right?) as being required for procreation. Not sure how we made continued breeding up to then without marriage?! As a perfect example I had a friend who was told she could not have children. The man she loved still wanted to marry her.. and they did marry. According to your argument that marriage is invalid. And no-one should have shown up to the ceremony because Society wouldn’t have cared.. after she couldn’t perform her “obligations” to Society. Thanks for being so condescending.
Finally.. If you don’t like marriage equality.. you don’t have to marry someone of the same sex. I’m still struggling to understand how me being married to a man destroys your marriage?
It was someone else who said that marriage was only for procreation and she also said that there is not a definate time when it can be established. I was saying that she was wrong on both counts. When she said that gays shouldn’t get married because they can’t have children, I asked did that mean that hetro couples should get divorced if they can’t have children. I see marriage as a commitment to each other, with or without children.
Sorry.. for completeness.. UK Marriage Act 1836 (not 1837) replaced Marriage Act 1753.. and 1836 was subsequently repealed and replaced with Marriage Act 1949. The UK is slightly different in that the religious side is more closely tied in.. but the authority still remains statutory.
David (Sydney Aust) — We do not need a history lesson on marriage. My issue relates to what marriage has been over the last century and gay marriage destroys that. You may contend that “What marriage IS about is public, legal and societal recognition of a bond between persons”, but I seriously do not see why society would have any interest in such a bond. Why do we care if people are married or not? We only care — as a society — where the well being of the next generation is a factor. I guess we will both have to wait to see what marriage looks like in 50 years, but I think it is already on the downslide.
If it’s on the downslide, why are gays fighting to be able to get married. Marriage is for the committment to each other. In the 50s and 60s many people just lived together and it was supposed to be on the downslide even then, but I hear just as much about people getting married today, it’s just that people who just live together are more open about it now.
@David (Sydney, Aust) Re: “If it’s on the downslide, why are gays fighting to be able to get married. Clearly the intention of gays is social recognition of the equality of their relationships to those of heterosexual relationships. The hope is that with gay marriage, the nature of their relationships is pretty much the same as for heterosexual couples, but, of course, there is a major significant difference which I think is pivotal and disqualifies them from legitimate marriage.
Re: “Marriage is for the committment to each other. ” Of course the couple cares about this, but it is not necessary to marry to make that commitment. Moreover, what you still have not answered is why society should care at all about two people bonding? There is no benefit to society in this. Society’s concern is in begetting and fostering the growth of the next generation. Marriage otherwise is of no value to society.
Believe it or not, a lot of people in this world love each other enough to want to make a commitment to each other. Where gays are concerned they are stopped from doing this. Blow what society thinks, if they want to make that commitment why shouldn’t they. As for worrying about the next generation, perhaps society should force hetro couples divorce if they find one partner or the other can’t have children.
“Blow what society thinks,” — Sorry, but I thought the whole point was to get society to support the notion of gay marriage. Now it’s “who cares what society thinks”??? In my view, civil unions should be sufficient to make a commitment and these would not jeopardize traditional marriage in the way that gay marriage does.
We do not force people to divorce when they are infertile (though in some countries, men do divorce for just this reason) for a couple of reasons. There often is no clear point at which people are firmly established as infertile. Secondly, it would be personally intrusive to demand that people prove fertility in one fashion or another. In the case of gay couples, the lack of an ability to procreate as part of the union is simply a fact. I don’t think marriage makes a lot of sense as a social institution if it is just a personal bond between two people. Good for them, but as I said, who cares? Their “bonding” does not contribute to society.
MaryLS wrote: ” In my view, civil unions should be sufficient to make a commitment and these would not jeopardize traditional marriage in the way that gay marriage does.”
I suspect this is a key part of your position, rather ridiculous from my perspective. Unless it frees your secret desire to run off with a woman, it seems silly. Yet your claim to believe that civil unions should serve well enough for Gay people–and I have noticed that this has only become acceptable to those opposed to Gay marriage as they realize they are losing the fight against any recognition of Gay relationships–actually touches upon something valuable that is lost in most of these discussions. Fundamentally, the idea of one size fits all permanent marriage is the main threat to marriage and commitment. But far too many religious people seem to insist that the rest of the world follow their religious based definition of marriage to allow rational alternatives to exist. Hence we have marriage with a 50% divorce rate.
“I suspect this is a key part of your position” Yes — it is key to my position. That’s why I said it. And for the record, I have never been opposed to civil unions for gay couples or gay relationships, in that I feel it is genuinely unfair where social benefits accorded to married couples are not also available to gays. Civil unions solve that problem. But in my view, deciding that two men or two women can get married totally destroys the meaning of “marriage” as an institution, which I feel exists to provide security for the procreation and upbringing of the next generation. I totally do not get your comment about my desire to run off with a woman — surely, if I were so inclined, I could do that with or without “gay marriage: — and you can too!
You responded “But in my view, deciding that two men or two women can get married totally destroys the meaning of “marriage” as an institution, which I feel exists to provide security for the procreation and upbringing of the next generation.” You are entitled to your opinions, but I must admit, the logic that Gay people marrying destroys the meaning escapes me. Marriage can provide security for raising children, which is also true for Gay parents. Legally acknowledging Gay marriage won’t force either you or your Church or preacher to marry any couple they don’t approve of or like.
It is hard to know how to respond to this. When the definition of something is changed, then it is not the same thing it was previously. In the case of marriage, if the definition is changed, then it becomes something new. I think that by severing the connection to our traditional understanding of marriage and by establishing that marriage is NOT about procreation, marriage as it once existed is simply gone. Now some may like what it is replaced by — some sort of two people bonding ritual — but the reverence anyone may have had for marriage as a building block for families is destroyed. The fact that some gay people may have children and may bring them into a gay marriage is a red herring. A gay relationship is not about having children. As an aside — I do not attend Church, read the Bible or have a preacher.
You said: but the reverence anyone may have had for marriage as a building block for families is destroyed. Just because it will for you doesn’t mean it will be for everyone, I know loads of people who can’t see it as destroying what you call the reverence of marriage. I’ll also be honest, I’ve been very surprised at who are in favour of gay marriage.
Dave I am a Christian and I DO believe in Gay marriage. It is what they want that counts, not what we foist on them. I am also a happily married woman to the same man for 38 years and still going strong. There are a lot of Gay Christians out there who want to get married. If you want a civil union in your life, fine have a civil union, but don’t stop any gays who want to get married doing so. I still can’t see how it’s going to be a threat to marriage.
You ask “why [should society] care at all about two people bonding?” The value is in the burden it takes off society and places upon the married couple. The value is in the legal and social support of that commitment. By your logic, were my claims not so (they are, and there is a plethora of social science behind it), infertile couples would be barred from marriage. How about you stop hiding your true religious feelings and just have out with them?
Seems to me that civil unions should be sufficient to support the “couple bonding” argument. Regarding infertile couples, my argument there is that it is not at all necessary to change the DEFINITION of marriage to accommodate them. There are no certainties regarding infertility. Circumstances around infertility could change at any point. My views do not stem from a religious conviction — though possibly they stem from a spiritual one. In my view, marriage is a bond that supports the transfer of life from one generation to the next. Gay marriage is incompatible with that notion.
Well that’s easy then.. using MaryLS’s own argument we delete “marriage” from the lexicon. Henceforth there will be no such thing as “marriage”, because the definition of civil union doesn’t need to be changed to support “the transfer of life from one generation to the next”. And we have equality. Thanks MaryLS.. that was an excellent idea!!
I do not think your statement makes a whole lot of sense. The issue is not “equality” at all — since gay marriage and heterosexual marriage will never be “equal” in that one allows for procreation and the other does not. Semantic gamesplaying does not change that reality. I think what is important here is equal rights under the law — and “civil unions” offer that and they do so without undermining our archetypal understanding of the term “marriage.” By your argument, perhaps we can get rid of racial differences also by getting rid of the terms that define race. In general, I do not favor less precision in the language. But you are right on one point — “Henceforth there will be no such thing as “marriage” — that is certainly the direction we are headed in.
Actually MaryLS.. if you check your Women’s Weekly or New Idea you might notice any number of same sex couples wandering around with children.. Sir Elton David Furnish, Neil Patrick Harris and David Burtka.. gosh.. all married AND with children. And I worked for a woman once who had a daughter with her partner. Well there goes the argument that only straight marriages can create children.
So, moving on.. it might also be worth considering that if “marriage” ceases to exist, it will be from the likes of you making it so. I was married to a woman once, and I want to marry my current partner. So clearly I’m not the one tearing it down.. hmm.. who does that leave? Oh yes.. you.
David — You really seem to be going off the deep end here. These people you name may have constructed families of one sort or another but people do not beget children with others of the same sex. PERIOD. The woman you know who had a daughter with her “partner” — which was the mother; and which the father?? I am not opposed to gay partnerships, and I understand that there are many people in relationships that do not offer a mother and a father for the children they raise — but I do not think that in general this is desirable for the species. Why is a partnership with your male partner (a la civil union) not sufficient to give you whatever sense of bonding you are seeking? In my view the dogmatic insistence that gay partnerships are the equivalent of marriage and should be called such undermines our social fabric in the long term.
Ok, let’s not look at “post-menopausal” women, but women in their 60s or 70s who have gone well beyond child-bearing age. Let’s say their husband pre-deceases them, because that’s what men tend do to, and they decide they want to get married again, for love, or financial gain, or amazing sex, or whatever. Tell me why you feel this woman, incapable or reproduction, should be allowed to get married, if you feel marriage is only for procreation.
“Separate but equal”.. so civil partnerships are good enough for the gays. It’s nice to know that you are using EXACTLY the same argument they used to support racial discrimination.. if only you were black you might understand haw patronising, how sanctimonious, and how utterly repulsive that attitude is. Not to mention that utterly ridiculous statement about “which was the father and..”. That is just truly disgusting and if you thought you had any validity, you no longer have.
And in all this you have NEVER addressed the argument as to why opposite sex parents need to be married to procreate. Look around.. are all those de facto couples with children to be sent to an island and allowed to starve to death because they don’t fit your narrow world? Well you might be interested to know that has actually been proposed by some USA politicians to deal with the “gay” problem. And if you’re ok with that, then I understand why you’re also happy with gays being treated as less than equal humans.
“Separate but equal”.. Different, but equal is what I am proposing. I don’t think we have any choice but to acknowledge that heterosexual relationships and homosexual relationships are in fact, different. Heterosexual relationships foster the continuation of the species, and homosexual relationships do not. I think that the attempt to align the gay marriage issue with the equal rights movement for Blacks is a distortion intended to gain sympathy for the gay marriage issue. The goal — surely — is that relationships be equal under the law, and civil marriage allows that. The different designations — marriage vs. civil unions — essentially acknowledges that there is a key difference. I am sorry, but I do not see how asking about the mother and the father regarding your gay friend’s relationship is in any way disgusting. We do still expect one of each when a child is begot, do we not? Also, I do not think I ever said that opposite sex parents need to be married to have children. It may have a damaging effect on their children if they are not, but we can’t force people to get married. There is also no need to redefine marriage because some people choose not to marry.
But you HAVE redefined marriage MaryLS.. you have redefined it to ONLY include opposite sex couples who are actively pro-creating. You have already admitted that those couples who are permanently infertile should be struck off the marriage register. You have re-defined marriage in your own world without a moment’s hesitation.
And you have also referred to “civil marriage”.. which makes me wonder if you even have any idea what you are arguing about.. since “marriage” is a civil union, i.e., a union sanctioned by the State. (I’ve already cited the legislation that confers this authority.. so don’t bother suggesting otherwise.) You constantly contradict yourself, that is when you’re not making objectionable, insulting and heinous comparisons.
Oh, and calling it “different but equal” IS THE SAME as “separate but equal”.
That’s utter rubbish. I personally know two same-sex couples, one where both women each gave birth to one of their two children, and the other who have 3 boys, in conjunction with a lesbian couple and a surrogate mother, well on the way to having their fourth child with the same surrogate mother.
The children of both couples are the most loved, well adjusted, normal children I have ever met.
Then there’s my partner who has two children. They’re pretty decent people too.
You are in total denial.
Mary is not only in denial.. but spectacularly wrong. Every *valid* study done has shown that children raised in same sex relationships are more well adjusted, loved, cared for, etc etc… on a statistical whole. Of course there are studies out there done by people who want to prove that same sex parents can only raise homicidal sociopaths, but those studies are highly discredited and never relied upon – unless you’re a fundamentalist Christian, or *spiritual* and bigoted.
Indeed. Two recent positive parenting stories from the USA:
====================================
Bad news for those who believe homosexual parents can negatively affect their children: a study of 17-year-olds who were raised by lesbian mothers found that they did well in school, with grades ranging from A- to B+, and were overall happier with their lives.
The study, lead by Nanette Gartrell at the Williams Institute of UCLA, titled “Adolescents with Lesbian Mothers Describe Their Own Lives,” has been a 26-year-long process. Gartrell and her team studied 78 participants and just recently published their results in the Journal of Homosexuality.
Not only did the teenagers report having good relationships with their mothers, but they also shared with the researchers their strong relationships with other friends. Many reported feeling comfortable talking about their lesbian mothers, whom many considered their “role models.” In addition to their great grades, many planned to attend four-year colleges.
Gartrell added, “As a psychiatrist, I can say that these are the types of child-rearing outcomes that every parent hopes for.”
[Source: Original Article]
====================================
Following on from the last new story, here is some further information on that study showing that kids from Lesbian parented families are doing just fine (if not better)!!
Teens with lesbian mothers are academically successful and happy with their lives. The 17-year-olds participating in the longest-running study of lesbian families had high school GPAs in the A- to B+ range, and nearly all planned to attend four-year colleges. These adolescents had strong family bonds, and they were nearly unanimous in describing their mothers as good role models. They also reported having numerous close friends—generally with same-age peers who were predominantly heterosexual. Most of the teens felt comfortable bringing friends home, informing friends about their mothers’ lesbianism and confiding in their mothers.
The teenagers were asked a series of questions about their everyday life experiences including academics, extracurricular activities, aspirations, friendships, family interactions, role models, health problems and wellbeing. Notably, almost all of the 78 adolescents described their mothers as good role models. Prior studies on the same group of teenagers found that they demonstrated more competencies and fewer behavioral problems than an age-matched normative sample of American youth; although some adolescents with lesbian mothers had experienced homophobic stigmatization, family closeness helped counteract its negative effects.
The 78 adolescents in the current report were drawn from families that are participating in the National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS), the longest-running and largest prospective investigation of lesbian mothers and their children in the United States. Initiated by Dr. Gartrell in 1986, the NLLFS examines the social, psychological and emotional development of the children as well as the dynamics of planned lesbian families.
The current study appears in the current issue of the Journal of Homosexuality.
Click here for the full report.
Click here for the press release.
[Source: Original Article]
====================================
Regardless of how successful the lesbians are in raising their children, I personally think it is good for children to have male and female role models in their growing up years. Many children, of course, do not for various reasons. But because there are some successful families headed by same-sex parents, it does not mean that two parents of the same sex are somehow preferable to (or no different from) parents of the opposite sex (which your posting of the examples seems to imply.) I think the human psyche is deeply influenced (likely on a subconscious level) and in different ways by the male and female parent in their lives, especially in their very early life experiences and again in adolescence. That does not mean that lesbians are not good parents or that they do not raise healthy kids.
However, gay parenting is not the topic here, as gay parenting does not require marriage. Since gay marriage is not available in many parts of the world, gay parenting presumably does just fine without marriage. My argument is about the nature of marriage itself. Gays do not marry for the PURPOSE of procreation which in the views of many people constitutes the essence of marriage. Clearly, there are others who just see marriage as a commitment between any two people who love each other (or maybe not). I accept that there are many who think this way, but I do not agree with it. I think that once we have totally abandoned the significance of procreation as it relates to marriage the institution itself will shrivel and die.
Clearly Mary you do think marriage will shrivel and die.. however fortunately the world is not made up of little people like you.. and we’ll all be just fine as we move on into the future and watch you in the rear view mirror. Tell me Mary.. which dinosaur do you most liken yourself to?
Again, you make no sense. Marriage is not necessary for procreation. You just need to look at the number of unmarried women who fall pregnant. And many people successfully raise children who are not married, although marriage may help the outcomes of the parenting and stability of the relationship. Which in itself is good enough reason to allow gay couples to get married. I hope you’d be advocating for better outcomes of children of same-sex couples than worse outcomes.
But if you want to continue on your high-and-mighty, holier-than-thou nonsensical tirade on why gay relationships are inferior to heterosexual relationships, and why gay people don’t want to get married for the same reasons as heterosexual people, then go ahead and do it.
You might also want to include those heterosexual people who are unable to reproduce (we’ve been down this path before) if you’re going to say marriage is only for heterosexual couples for the purposes of creation.
Damn I wish I was a bigot. It must feel so good to be superior.
I was watcfhing a programme on TBN the other day and the figures were 64% of gays admit to have sex with over 1,000 partners. Crikey, where do they get the time, I don’t think even a prostitute would admit to having that many sexual partners. What I would like is to know how they know. Where do they get the figures. Do census forms or tax forms ask for sexual orietation. I know quite a few gays and lesbians, and although one or two sleep around, the same as some hetrosexuals, I really don’t think they’d have the time for that many.
More to the point, what does it matter, as long as it is all legal. I caught up with an old school friend a few years back . He told me he took himself off overseas, lived in the UK for a while and had the most amazing amount of sex with just about every woman he could lay his hands on.
I’d like those who are counting the sexual partners of gay men to go count the sexual partners of unencumbered horny heterosexual men. Then go count the number of casual sexual partners of gay men who by day are heterosexual men, and then break that down into a list of married, partnered and unpartnered.
And while this douche-bag is at it who is so concerned about they number of partners of gay men, they can go count the number of women who shag any guy that moves. I suspect the “researcher” is so jealous of gay men that they aren’t coping all that well with their inadequacy.
@MaryLS: Mary, you say “civil unions should be sufficient”. That’s no different from saying “you can’t drink from THAT water fountain, use THIS one.” It’s bogus and you know it. Separate but equal is NOT equal.
You say that “circumstances around infertility could change at any point.” Further, you say “In my view, marriage is a bond that supports the transfer of life from one generation to the next. Gay marriage is incompatible with that notion.” So is allowing infertile couples to marry because, well, once infertility sets in, chances are EXCELLENT you aren’t going to become magically fertile again.
What’s more, you neglect the hundreds of thousands of gay families raising children – some adopted, some biological -, which fulfills the very duty you claim is the purpose of marriage, yet you would regulate THOSE families to second-class citizenry. Please explain how you justify such discrepancy.
I think I there’s a lot of over reaction here. The Baptist guy rejects gay marriage as a social concept and thinks it’s important to stand by that. No need to take his views personally. A lot of people feel that marriage should be a building block for procreation and not primarily about “two people who love each other.” That’s a legitimate view. Gay marriage destroys that concept.
It is hate, for hate’s sake. If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t get gay married. No-one else’s union diminishes your own. Divorce also destroys the concept of marriage – but you son’t see christians protesting for that to be illegal, because it serves their interests. Sheer hypocrisy.
You’ve obviously never faced hate for who you are, something you couldn’t help and didn’t hurt anyone. Try to have some empathy sometime, like a human being; I thought that’s also what the bible taught.
You cannot accept gay marriage without acknowledging that it essentially changes the nature of marriage as an institution. This is not about “everyone doing their own thing and minding their own business.” The character of our social institutions affects everyone, and those who think gay marriage undermines the institution itself have every right to express their view.
Gay marriage changes nothing. It only expands upon the definition and becomes all-encompassing. It deals away with gender boundaries. That people like you feel so threatened by that says a lot about your *own* insecurities. And the fact that you believe that your heterosexual “social institution” is so vulnerable means that it is time to re-build that social institution with a firmer, solid foundation.
Mary you say You cannot accept gay marriage without acknowledging that it essentially changes the nature of marriage as an institution. Please tell us how it changes marriage.
There are too many flaws to the ‘marriage for procreation’s sake’ argument. Marriage, like many things (say a religion that encouraged the stoning of women who had been raped for instance) has evolved. No longer are we living in a time where a couple must give birth to 10 children in the hopes half of them will survive. In fact, with the world’s population swiftly reaching the maximum estimated sustainable level (and that’s under optimal conditions which we most definitely do not have) that sort of mentality should be discouraged.
Marriage, now more than ever, is about finding someone you love to spend your life with. Otherwise the infertile couple’s marriage is null and void, the couple that does not *want* children is null and void. Marriage is love and family, sometimes that family does not include off spring, sometimes it includes offspring that isn’t biological.
You know what, MaryLS? I’m going to bet more heterosexuals undermine the institution of marriage considering one out of every two divorce—left in the wake are untold broken families–that is always conveniently forgotten. Good try, but you are using religion as a basis to spread hate. What would Jesus do?
No, people like you destroy that concept. You want and demand respect for your assumed heterosexual privilege while assuming someone’s “religion” (mythology) somehow endows them the right to disparage others. Screw him, screw you, screw your f&cked up mythology. THIS is why so many LGBT people commit suicide. Their blood is literally on your and his hands.
Screw him, screw you, screw your f&cked up mythology. If you’re not gay don’t insult someone who is. If you don’t have a religion I will say the same thing, don’t insult us just because we are.
Oh please! It may be a “social stance” for you, but he chooses to ‘de-friend’ someone who disagrees with him rather than engage. It is easy to say it is not personal, but when it affects your own life even a “social stance” has personal ramifications. The write claimed his stance was religious, not social, and that “Gay marriage is “a slap in the face to those who choose God’s Word.” He takes this marriage of two men, strangers to himself, as a personal affront, presuming he includes himself among those people who believe in the (translated) words of the Bible over its spirit. But that is another discussion.
He didn’t simply reject gay marriage. He rejected a human being, by unfriending him simply because he supported gay marriage. And let’s not pretend this is about gay marriage, anyway. People who are against gay marriage are against gay people.
MaryLS ~ You are 100% right that you cannot accept gay marriage without acknowledging that it essentially changes the nature of marriage as an “institution”. Just imagine where the “institution” of our country would be today if not for the changing of the fundamental views of the American Nation as a whole with the Civil Rights Act. Just as our nation now has a black President (whether you agree with his politics or not), so should our nation grant ALL citizens the same rights to marriage. This right has already been granted in the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution in it’s Equal Protection Clause that requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction. Maybe it’s time for the right of equal marriages to granted.
Institution defined: An institution is any structure or mechanism of social order and cooperation governing the behavior of a set of individuals within a given human community.
It seems to me that the concept is flawed.
If a couple finds they cannot have children does that devalue their marriage? Should they just divorce each other and he seeks a broodmare type wife while she looks for a stud husband even though they promised to love and cherish each other and only end the marriage at the death of one of them??? I opted to have one child; she was all we could afford to raise without going into poverty. Was I supposed to become a baby factory??? Good luck to you and whatever children you may have, MaryLS. I’m glad I’m not you though.
But it is NOT “a legitimate view”, and that’s the point. The view you expound – that marriage is for procreation – is invalid on its face. There is no fertility test to become married, never has been.
Such a well said experience, its important people start personifying the experience because its not someone elses problem, its everyone needing to open minds and lessen hate. Thanks for being on team equality 🙂 the post should be seen by all, all the best to you and family!
Your Defriender was never really your friend. And it’s his loss, because you have the same great qualities as your Brother & his Husband. Kindness is very important to me. Thank you for sharing & you’re better off w/o that friend…..
I loved your post! Very sorry to hear about your friend but maybe he will grow and change over the years? Good luck to you and keep on writing!
Wauw.. What a story! It’s sad that some people are so narrow minded that they cannot see the happiness of other people, even though they’re gay! I just love to see people that love each other get married.. it doesn’t matter for me if they are two guys, two women or a man and a woman. Love is love. Don’t worry about the guy that defriended you.. you don’t want any narrow minded people in your life! Keep on writing.. 😀
A poignant piece. Thank you. I hope this inspires someone who is struggling with their sexuality or needing a reason to feel validated.
Here’s what really kills me about the Baptist preacher friend. He could have said NOTHING. His opinion wasn’t asked for. You didn’t go to him and ask if you thought it was a good thing if your brother and his beloved were wedded. He just upped and offered his Holier Than Thou Opinion. I am Catholic, taught by Jesuits. I love everybody and I accept and see no sin. I see sin in hypocrisy. Had you asked the Baptist preacher if he thought it was a good idea and he said “no,” then we could all say, “Wow, imagine that!” As is” To state something just like that because it “offends” him and to state it unbidden.
A second point, if I may and I think it may be more valid, than the first but certainly not in this context. This is what I call a “slice out of time.” Your brother and his husband are obviously very, very devoted to one another and have spent much time caring for one another. Anyone who has spent any time in their orbits has seen that and know their character. This Baptist preacher has seen 1 millisecond of 2 lives and has made a judgement. This is akin to seeing a rap sheet, or a sentence for a crime of passion, or even a crowned beauty queen and passing judgement and making an assessment on a person’s entire life. I’m sure there’s a better way to say this and I am casting no aspersions on your brother’s marriage. I think it’s grand. I just hate that it’s marred by this.
I had to write because I live in a place where people are so often judged and too harshly. I was homeless for a time and I had to put up with the most ridiculous nonsense on FB. Nothing of course, like what you all are going through, but I realized that people are just as, if not more benighted and bigoted than I ever believed possible. I lived in San Francisco in my early teens in the 70s and it was just all very open there. My parents were from Scotland and as an only child, I had no boundaries, but was taught how to be discerning. I was also taught how to be kind. Thank you for a beautiful, beautiful, if absolutely heartbreaking post. I wish your brother and his husband the best and all the happiness in the world and beyond. I have a ,man in my life. I love him beyond reason. He was judged harshly and wrongly. He is wonderful. He has a label for the rest of his life.
It saddens me to know that there are so many people in this world that believe (and behave) in the manner of the person you speak of in this posting. I have many friends who are gay, lesbian, and transgender and have always believed they, their spouses, and their children should be treated equally to those of heterosexual couples. Love is love and my beliefs have always been based on the basic principle of all persons should be treated equally. Now I have a personal reason to stand firm on these beliefs, my teenage daughter recently came out (not that it was really any surprise to any of us – lol). Now I fight for MY daughters right to be treated fairly and equally, and you know there is no fiercer warrior than a mother protecting her cub. As a result, I have taken a very firm stance on all topics related to equality in ALL people and have very little tolerance for close minded people who hide behind their fundamentalist beliefs regarding marriage. Hurray for you, and may your brother and his husband find any years of happiness together!!
Reblogged this on The Corner and commented:
So…So very messed up. I urge you to think of what God would think of us making judgement on our equals. Do we really have that right to make such judgement? If you don’t think Gay-ness is right, by all means be straight, but don’t try to play God and judge your neighbors. It’s not right.
(thestudyfanatic) I love how you mention that we are “equals”. I don’t think these people believe people who are gay to be equal to those who are not – it is unbelievable how a person can be considered an “equal” when assumed straight, but that same person is apparently is no longer an equal when found to be gay. I think everyone has the right to love whomever it is they are attracted to (provided they are consenting and of legal age). I don’t understand how what someone does in their own home is so offensive to others. If I am gay (which I am not) it does not affect you, unless you are my partner. People should be entitled to live their own lives without ridicule. Didn’t these people have mothers who taught them if you can’t say something nice don’t say anything at all.
There is a difference between anti-gay and anti-gay marriage. I don’t care what you do in your home, but marriage is a social institution and thus you are asking for society’s blessing. Marriage is a public act. People are not obligated to agree with gay marriage. Many view it as harmful to our traditional understanding of marriage and it’s relationship to procreation.
Oh, and one other thing: marriage and procreation are mutually *exclusive*. The ability to procreate has *never* been a natural pre-requisite for marriage. By your logic, infertile couples should not get married because they cannot procreate. Neither can menopausal or elderly women. Your argument has no factual basis, which is why you feel so paranoid about your “social institution” collapsing.
lol… priceless. Judgement? The biggest single problem with this post? Judgement comes first from the Christian churches who fight against marriage equality almost across the board, claiming that to do so would infringe *their* right to freedom of religion. Pardon? How would my *marriage* restrict your freedom to worship whomsoever you want? Now that is judgement. (Personally I think God is an imaginary friend, but if someone wants to go that way, I’m not going to stop them. Interesting the fact it doesn’t work the other way in return.)
Apart from that I’m struggling to find where you judged your Baptist friend. You simply disagreed with his position and stepped back.
Oh, and I had a Baptist mate for many years (I’d even shared a flat with him – although I was firmly closeted at the time) but when I emailed pics of my ‘commitment ceremony’ (still not legal in Australia) I never heard from him again. Funny that.
I loved reading your story. I have a nephew who is gay and it took him many years to come out and be the man he is today….a very loving person to everyone. He has been beat up and took it all but now he fights back. Thank you for standing up to those hateful human beings who quote their bible but dont follow all of it.
Great story!
beautiful!
Congrats for the double bonus Freshly Pressed and EP!
I missed this when it posted. I love your message and WP for putting it out there for so many to see. We live in polarized times and I hope to see that change in my lifetime. A story like this helps!
Thank you for such a loving blog about being a supportive brother…no matter what the issue is. I have to question those “Christians” who interpret the Bible the way they want it to be. They’ve forgotten, as Jesse Gage states above, “love thy neighbor”. I feel sorry for those people who keep their world so narrow. FB seems to have become a bully pulpit for people to shout their opinions to those who don’t agree with them. I’ve been called “UnAmerican” and “morally corrupt” because I don’t support Romney. It gives me great insight to the people who shout their hatred. It’s good to see someone staying true to who they are as a person. Congratulations!
beautiful!
deep piece, exceptional rendition
Thank you for posting this story. I am a Christian, and I love the Bible, but I value the whole thing, not just the parts that make me feel better than anyone else. I especially respect the part that says, “Love your neighbor.” My neighbors are gay. And I love them. They are some of the warmest, most smile-inducing people I have ever known.
Being gay doesn’t disqualify you from God’s love, and it doesn’t disqualify you from my life. Jesus hung out with people of all walks of faith and life. He ate and drank and celebrated life with them, and he wanted each one to know his Father.
Congratulations to your brother, and good on you for making public your story with your old “friend’s” rejection. Please know that not all Christians feel the same way.
These past few months I was receiving similar messages from friends and family about my post about gay rights (really they were like 7!) and my reviews of M/M Romance books. I went as far as to limit my posts, but last Thursday I posted a link to a charity that helps young kids that have thrown out of their home because they were gay.
In my opinion, if you don’t like it, then ignore my post (as I often do myself with many of my friends’ posts). I’m not trying to convince anyone, FB is not the right place for that. But in less than 15 minutes I had a message saying I was a sinner if I believed in helping ‘those kinds’ of kids and my morals were not the right ones for raising my three girls. That statement just did it for me and I posted a status rant where I let EVERYONE know that if they feel offended/bothered by my posts then unfriend me or unsubscribe from them.
I am sorry to hear that you went through something similar, but thank you for your post. It reassured me that I did the right thing by speaking out. My best to your brother and his partner and to you as well.
Strangely enough, I’ve not had as many bad comments on FB as I have expected. Especially as some of my FB friends are Charismatic Christians. I am a Christian, but do not believe in denominations.
Thx for sharing your story. It gives me the courage to write these words in public. I have been a ‘tgirl’ now for 4 yrs and am slowly becoming more public with my emerging female identity.
Hey there from England. Huge debate going in over here about ‘holy’ bit of matrimony, but I imagine it is so much harder in US where Mitt and the homophobes appear to have such a lot of mainstream support despite their vile views. We get a bit of that here, but rhankfully fundamentalism doesn’t seem to have such a scary grip on society. All the best to you all and nice post xx
Also don’t forget Magma, if they live in England, they can also do a Gretna Green and cross the border to Scotland to get married.
I think, as the time passes, gay or lesbian people will be more acceptable in our community.
If you look back to thirty or 20 or even 10 years from now, you will see a big difference in the way our community look to those people now compared to those days.
Great sharing of your experience. And also great that you were able to respond to your ‘ex-friend’ without attacking him. Fear, ignorance, anger and often hate, in the name of God and love is all to common in most cultures. It takes thought and skill to confront that, without reacting to them in a similar vein.
I really like your post. Not reacting in a similar vein is key. And it can be difficult sometimes regardless of the “-ism”. Thanks for the reminder.
This was so wonderful to read. Thank you so much for posting your story!
Thank you for sharing your story. In middle school, we use to have a word of the month that we’d focus on learning the principles of. Teachers would hand out laminated, colored, 4×4” inch cards for us to post in our lockers or put in our binders to help drive the point home. One word we learned was Tolerance, defined as, “A fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one’s own.” This seems to be a very difficult concept for America to master, because our country wasn’t founded with this idea in mind. We are a very diverse nation and as a result, the likelihood of us agreeing on anything is always going to be slim; this is where Tolerance becomes key. I hope with time and courage our country can move away from ideas of the past…to take a middle school lesson and put it into practice.
Thanks for this post. Tolerance is important, as you said. I think the part that gets most people is the “…permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one’s own.” I think that some people feel as though they are buying into an idea, value, or practice if they disagree but don’t rail against it. “Let it be…” is good advice.
Well written! I teach at a community college and we have a Gay Straight Alliance club. They sell t-shirts that say, “Gay? Fine by me.” It’s a great message.
Thank you for sharing your story. I’m so proud of you for standing up for your brother and his husband. Live and let live! Love is beautiful in every way, shape and form!
It’s scary how many people seem to think that gay marriage is anti-God, when really it’s pro-love, just like marriage for heterosexuals, bisexuals, and all the rest of the -sexuals. Congratulations to your brother and his husband.
Pingback: Freshly Pressed: Editors’ Picks for September 2012 | iwebspider design and consulting
Pingback: Freshly Pressed: Editors’ Picks for September 2012 — Blog — WordPress.com
Bonjour from overseas! This is just what I was thinking of, and you got it right. Thanks
Amazing story, thank you for sharing and it does give you something to think about.
Awesome story, thanks for sharing! And sorry friends can’t overlook issues. I am gay and still believe in God! Hopefully one day can marry my man and gain the rights others have with their marraige! Again thanks for sharing!