“Love and marriage go together like a horse and carriage…..?”

The South African National Assembly yesterday passed a bill allowing for same sex marriages.  I think it is wonderful, but I was very surprised to find out I am apparently in the minority.  According to some polls, most people are against legalizing same sex marriage.  And I really, honestly can’t understand why.

 I am not being facetious when I ask these questions, but I need help understanding why some people are so opposed to allowing gay people access to the same rights and opportunities that we all (should) enjoy in a humanitarian society.  Why shouldn’t they be allowed to formalize their union in anyway they choose to?  If they choose to celebrate their love, dedication and commitment to each other by getting married; then how does that have any impact what so ever on anyone else?  

 (Whether marriage is the sensible thing for anyone to do is another story all together – only joking Darling Husband of mine, I love you!  Thrilled to be married to you! Marriage is wonderful etc etc!)

 I don’t understand the opposition. Really though, I am not being facetious at all. If you choose not to be gay, then good for you.  Legalizing gay marriages will not make you gay / will not mean you have to marry a gay person and really shouldn’t affect your life in any way. It is not as if you will suddenly be forced to attend weekend after weekend of extravagant nuptials starring lavender-suited Elton John look-alikes mincing down the aisle to “Dancing Queen”.

 Seriously though, I am trying to understand the opposition to the legalization of gay marriages. Perhaps people have moral / religious objections? Let me think … ok, let’s say you don’t believe in sex before marriage because you think it is morally wrong. Good, fine. Then you don’t sleep with anyone before marriage.  Whether I slept with Marko before we got married or not (which of COURSE I didn’t, being so virginal etc), shouldn’t affect anyone else. You might think same sex marriage is wrong / immoral / against your religion, then just don’t do it yourself. But allow other people the choice to do what feels right for them.

 But perhaps I am missing the point somewhere. I’d like understand your viewpoint. And saying it is ‘wrong’ in any moral / religious etc sense isn’t a good enough answer I’m afraid.  That is too much like “just because”. Substantiate your answer. Help me understand that it isn’t just a case of “I don’t like it and therefore they can’t”.  

 I hope we can have a civil conversation about this.  You can go anon if you like, but any discriminatory / inflammatory / nut job comments will be deleted.

Comments

[Angie]

I'm with you. I really don't care what anyone else does, as long as they aren't doing it to me.

I just don't have the time or energy to involve myself in other people's relationships.

[Jennifer]

While I firmly believe homosexuality violates God's law, I also believe that no human government has any rational basis for denying homosexuals the right to marry. The actions of homosexuals in this matter have no effect on anyone and I see no reason to discriminate against them in this fashion. Perhaps it comes down to many people not wanting to give tacit approval or enabling homosexual relationships, but I don't see it that way myself.

[Not sure]

Well, in my religion, marriage is a sacrament. It *is* a bit offensive to me to have two women call themselves married.

HOWEVER, I see the point in how gays want to be together. I see the committed relationships. There are legal issues etc.

I also don't like the flippant way people get married and then divorced. That also offends me. IMO, marriage is serious.

I would much rather have committed couples in stable relationships gay or straight. I think it benefits all of us.

[jenny]

I am in agreement with you as well. We legalized Gay marriage in Canada a few years ago, although it's still hottly debated. A good friend of mine is very very against gay marriage so I'll give you her arguement. She is a devote catholic and believes strongly that marriage is a sacrement between a man and woman - period. Marriage is simply not something that can occur between two people of the same sex. I don't understand her arguement, but she is quite stuck in standing behind it. In Canada, no church is forced to perform a gay marriage - quite often it's done in a cival service. To me, it's more about the gay couple having the same rights as a hetro married couple in the event of things like death, injury, child rearing, etc - and I believe they are entitled to those rights.

[debi]

i think the thing is that people have certain ideas of what they think 'society' as a whole should or shouldn't support. someone who believes being gay is morally wrong, will not want to live in a society that supports gayness. they don't want society to do what they think is 'wrong'.

i know that everyone's into 'you believe whatever you like just don't bother me with it' these days, but i don't think beliefs work that way. i think religion is about society. it's about ideas and rules that hold people together and give them a common identity. a society works much better if everyone sticks to the same standard of what is right and wrong (utopically speaking).

it's a matter of what gets taught to our kids too. we want society to reflect what 'we' think is best, so that our kids will grow up with the best. if we think being gay or having sex before marriage is wrong, we don't want society to condone this, because we fear the influence it'll have on our kids.

apart from this, some of us also believe that there is a supreme God in heaven who set up certain guidelines to life. the answer to your question then isn't 'because i don't like it' but 'because God doesn't like it'. i know this probably isn't a good-enough answer for you, but for the people that do have such a view of God it is. compared to God we are infinitely small and worthless, so who are we to argue with his laws? i'm not saying you have to agree with me on this, but i want you to know that for some people this IS a good enough reason. it's just a whole different attitude towards life, whether or not we believe in an all-powerful absolute truth God or not.

[j]

People who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds are missing the point. I don't expect the Catholic Church to be performing same-sex marriages any time soon. The Church has a particular definition of marriage that that does not fit. Fine. But the good old justice of the peace or a judge etc. is not officiating over a religious sacrament, but is creating a civilly recognized legal union between two people. So oppose marriage in a church, if you must, but recognize that that has nothing to do with state-sanctioned marriage.

I have friends who are in favor of civil unions as long as it is not called marriage. But to me allowing a civil union that looks like a marriage, but isn't called a marriage is just the old "separate but equal" dodge. In the US, there was a time when the Supreme Court decided it was okay to have separate white buses and black buses etc. as long as they were "equal." But "separate" can never be "equal." Words matter. Gay couples want to have the legal rights of married couples, sure. But they also want recognition, and that label matters. So even though there is a tiny part of me that feels a little funny calling it "marriage," I recognize that that funny feeling is based on cultural and social history, and nothing more. There is NO REASON not to allow same-sex couples to get MARRIED. I believe it is inevitable. The tide has turned, and nothing will turn it back. It is like giving women the vote. Can you imagine a world now where women are not allowed to vote? I think that certainly in my children's lifetimes, people will feel the same way about same-sex marriage.

[Kay]

I've often thought that it is the word "marriage" that hangs up alot of people. I'm not one of them. I've heard the argument that allowing gays to marry will destroy the sanctity of marriage. Oh, really? How? How is it any different than straights who don't take marriage seriously? People who have "starter marriages"? People who get married 4 and 5 times? Are those people really committed to marriage? IMHO, no, they are not. Sometimes marriages don't work out for whatever reason. Being gay has nothing to do with it.

I understand the viewpoint of being against homosexuality on a religious basis. That's fine. It's bigoted, but fine.

The GOVERNMENT is not allowed to have those predjudices. At least it shouldn't be allowed to. Call it a civil union. In fact call ALL non-religious ceremonies a civil union if you want. I had one of those. And I'm Catholic. Apparently, not a very good one. Oh well. I guess that will be between me and God.

Instead of being married, we can be unioned. What ever.

Let the gay people get married. They deserve every right, priviledge, protection under the law that the rest of us have.

[Jessy]

In a society that believes in the separation of church and state (and I realize not all do), I don't see how there are any grounds for prohibiting gay marriage. The only objections I've ever seen or heard to gay marriage are rooted in religion.

For example, not to pick on debi, but consider her commens:

"We want society to reflect what 'we' think is best, so that our kids will grow up with the best. ... apart from this, some of us also believe that there is a supreme God in heaven who set up certain guidelines to life. the answer to your question then isn't 'because i don't like it' but 'because God doesn't like it'."

That's all fine, but (at least in the US) we live by a legal code that is separate from what different gods dictate is best. When I was growing up, I didn't eat meat on Fridays because I was taught that God didn't like it. I'd never presume to try to make that law. To me, this falls into the same camp. No one is requiring churches to perform gay marriages, nor should they.

It's bigotry hiding behind a religious guise, as it often does.

[Jenn]

I thinks it's discrimination to not allow them to get married. I'm also Catholic. It's just not fair to say only certain people can get married. Who cares? Two women or two men marrying each other doesn't threaten my marriage in any way. I've know a lot of same-sex couples that have better relationships than I do.

[Katherine]

First time posting - couldn't help myself on this one. As someone who was raised Catholic, I was married in the church and am raising my children in the church. One of my most fervent hopes is that when my children are grown, they will have complete freedom to choose who they wish to marry. It was my unencumbered right to marry whomever I chose - why should I have any different right to fall in love just because I chose someone of the opposite sex? Love is love, family is family. Family is not, in my opinion, defined by gender, but by loving, supporting, and accepting eachother.

[One of Two Mommies]

As a lesbian woman in a very committed relationship I appreciate reading all of the comments above. I too don't "get it" when people say they don't approve of same sex marriage. It takes a lot for me to get angry, but when I hear or read about people adamently arguing against same sex marriage it impacts me profoundly. I react from a very deep emotional level and it feels like a personal attack. Not that this post has made me feel that way! Quite the opposite - I am enjoying seeing people's views being articulated.

When I hear the arguments it makes me feel that my way of life, my choice in a partner is not honored or valued. It makes me feel "less than". Or at least it does until I tell myself that it is just someone elses opinion, not what I believe to be true. I believe everyone is entitled to their opinions and respect religious groups rights to not marry whomever they don't want to. My devout Catholic cousin who volunteers TONS for her church got a divorce and then met a wonderful man and was not allowed to be married in her own church. Knowing certain groups' opinions means there is no way I am going to want to be married in a that groups church - why would I place myself in a situation that doesn't fully embrace me on such a special day? When my partner and I do get married (and I live in Canada so I can) we will surround ourselves with people who have always loved and supported us and will have a friend who is a United Church children's minister officiate for us (even though we are not associated with the church).

PS - Tertia I am happy to report that the pregnancy is going well! I am 19 weeks today, have a nice round tummy and had a ultrasound last week that looked wonderful! I think this may finally happen for us :-)

[Suzie-Q.]

Tertia~
Yours is a question of tolerance. Either people are tolerant of the beliefs of others, or, they are not. It's as simple as that for me.
Personally, I have no problem with what whatever anybody else wants to do with their private lives as long as they don't hurt me and mine in the process.
The problem i find with many of those who rely on religious grounds for their argument is that they so often believe that theirs is the ONLY correct and good way to live. They are intolerant of others and I find that hypocritical in many of these folks who claim to be such loving types.
My sexual orientation has nothing to do with you. My religious beliefs have nothing to do with you. People should just stay out of both of these and realize that gay marriages/unions (or whatever you feel *comfortable* calling them) have absolutely no ill effect on others. And, everybody should be entitled to the same civil and societal benefits. Not just the ones that you or I personally think should be entitled to them.
I mean, how is it fair that I was a member of the lucky sperm club and was born hetero? That was just plain luck for me to be born in this day and age with these societal norms. But, the norms change. They are ever evolving to keep up with the reality of our culture.
Comparing this issue to the women's vote is absolutely, 100% correct and on point. What about slavery? These issues were also originally argued from a biblical perspective and failed. MISERABLY, i might add..

Oh, don't get me started....

[Jamie]

I actually have a cousin who is homosexual and she and I have discussed this and she actually agrees with me.

I think gay marriage should be allowed with a stipulation (and I think most churches will enforce this anyway) (and BTW: I was raised Catholic but am no longer religious).

I do not think that gays should be allowed to get married in a church or by a "preacher". A courthouse union seems fine to me, but marriage, as a religious sacrement, does not. Many churches do not condone homosexual activity. Until they do, I do not think that homosexuals should be allowed to get married there. The foundations of the church would have to change -- as well as many passages in the Bible.

Just my 2 cents -- and probably worth less. :)

[ls]

Here in the US this is such a huge, decisive issue. What I find astonishing is that people actually CARE about what two adults do in their lives, particularly as it hurts no one. And care enough to demonstrate, pass laws, freak out about two peopl wanting to marry. For many years people used the belief that gay people were dangerously promiscuous as a reason whay being gay was awful; now that mnay gay people want to marry, monogamy isn't good enough for these nosy busybody types either!! Why people can't focus on REAL issues that affect families, like poverty, substance abuse, violence etc etc is the sad part of all of the brouhaha over gay rights.

[Em]

I was going to post part of j's comment (but probably not as articulartly) regarding the state of marriage as it applies to a religious ceremony vs a goverment recognized contract. I agree wholly with that.

But even as a Catholic (who struggles because I do disagree with alot of the political views of the church) I can't abide by the arguement "its not what God wants". I don't know what God wants and I think its arrogant to think you do. I'm going to try to live a good, accepting, loving life and hope I was on the right side of God but I'm not going to try to guess what he wants just because one side of an arguement thinks that is a trump card.

This may sound very pollyanna-ish but what confuses me most about this being an issue is we are talking about people in love wanting to be together and make themselves family. The goal is goodness all around, there isn't a side to this that harms anyone. So what is the problem?

[Beachal]

I feel they should be allowed to get married, and I don't care if it' in a church, courthouse or wherever. I hate when people spout that allowing gay marriage takes away from the sanctity of mine. Bullshit. My opinion: who cares, they love each other, want to be committed to each other, then fine. I may not be a super religious person, but I do have my beliefs, and I think things should be more open to interpretation. God may consider homosexuality a sin, but what about all the other sins in the Bible that are committed daily? Do people that commit those sins have their rights taken away? No. So why should we withhold those same rights to someone supposedly committing a different sin?

Blah. I'm nowhere near as articulate as I'd like to be. But I honestly feel gays should be able to marry, and have the same legal rights. I just don't see it ever fully being possible in this close minded world.

[Anon for the first time ever!]

Never posted here before but have read many times -
I am all for gay marriage. My father is not. I don't *agree* with his reasoning, but being a hardcore homophobe his reasoning isn't isolated. He owns a bar in a very redneck part of middle america and there is a general consensus that...

"If "the gays" can start marrying, if we change the definition of marriage, then what is to stop other changes of marriage? Adults to children? People to animals? Polygamy?"

[Heather]

I haven't read all the comments so forgive me if I'm just restating what somebody else said.

Marriage is no longer just about religion. If marriage was something that only related to their religion, fine, I can see the "religious" arguement.

However, in most (all?) countries marriage is now about health care, dependent care, beneficiaries, etc.

Why shouldn't gay people have the same rights to shared health plans and being named as beneficiaries? There is no logical reason why not.

I live in Massachusetts, where we are little more "liberal" than most states in the union and this is till causing a lot of conflict.

Of course, a very good gay friend of mine is opposed to gay marriage. Well, actually he's opposed to marriage...period. So maybe he doesn't count :)

[Linda]

The reason I am opposed to gay marriage is because I am a Christian. When 'one' chooses to be a christian, 'one' chooses to live by God's law. Marriage is a gift given by god to a man and a woman, solidified as a covenant with God- a marriage ceremony. As a Christian, I have no right to judge non-christians- only love them. So a gay couple who chooses to live together and be unioned is fine with me- but don't call it marriage- that is a disgrace to God. Non christians should not be married- gay or straight. Unioned with the same legal rights of course- but it is fundamentally different. Marriage is a covenant between God, man and woman- period. If people understood this more clearly we would not have the divorce rates we have. I will never judge non-christians choices in life as wrong or right because it it none of my business, but when a non christian claims religious titles, I will vehemently oppose. God says Christians are to judge only other Christians to keep us accountable and any one who is a non-believer we are simply to love and not judge.
Just my two cents,
Linda

[jette]

According to the Christian religion homosexuality is wrong. Being a Christian, this is an issue I struggle with, because I believe in human rights, and equality. I will admit that I do feel a slight 'oddness' to the idea of two same sex people getting married, but I have absolutely no problem or gripe with gay people at all. They are individuals just like any one of us, and being gay is just a part of who they are. Everyone should have equal choices. It should be THEIR choice. The focus shouldn't be on allowing the act of gay people getting married (a gay wedding), but more on allowing two INDIVIDUALS to join legally in a committed and binding relationship with the person they love, and (more importantly) allowing the couple to enjoy the same rights as any other couple after the marriage. Let THEM make the moral choice.

[KLynn]

Most of my views have already been stated more eloquently than I ever could. I feel the same way about this issue as I do about many others...what other people choose to do with their lives and in their bedrooms is their business. As long as they aren't hurting anyone else, especially if it makes them happy, leave them alone. Committed couples deserve the same rights and respect, no matter what gender combination they are.

Bob and I are good friends with a gay couple. They've been together longer than Bob and I have. They are good people. If marriage is ever legalized for them here in the deep south U.S. (ha ha ha), Bob and I will likely be invited to the wedding, and will be happy to go.

I am very discouraged and embarrased by the level of intolerance in the US. Hopefully, the recent shake-up in the congress will make some positive headway.

[Jessy]

Linda said: "Non christians should not be married- gay or straight."

REALLY? I have never, ever heard this argument.

Aside from the fact that it's patently offensive and smugly superior, it's completely not founded in the Bible. Marriage predates Christianity according to the Christian Bible - see lots of weddings in the Old Testament and the Wedding at Cana. Or, you know, Mary and Joseph. None of the married parties were Christians, and there is no hint that even a strict literal reading of the Bible suggests that marriage ought to be limited to Christians. Did you mean marriage in a Christian church? Or in a Christian ceremony?

Also, non-Christians don't have higher divorce rates than Christians do, so limiting marriage to Christians wouldn't, as Linda asserts, touch the divorce rate.

[Tif]

My feelings have gone back and forth with this issue, running the gamut from vehemently opposing it to supporting same sex marriage. My view actually changed while I was pregnant with my son last year. I would NEVER want to deny my son the right to get married if he was gay. If he was in a stable relationship, he should be afforded the same rights as his father and I.

For the record, I am Lutheran, baptized and confirmed.

[JennyK]

I'll never understand how same-sex marriages would be any kind of threat to my own marriage. That argument completely baffles me.

To deny the same rights to committed homosexual couples is simply discriminatory. Plain and simple. I'm aghast that my own state voted to amend it's constitution to include a "marriage amendment." Pathetic.

Thank God the recent US elections and changes in Congress will probably prevent the same thing from happening on a national scale.

[Jaqa]

As a lesbian who's co-parenting a 2 year old with my partner of 12 years, I was very interested to read the comments on this post.

I want to thank Angie, who wrote: "While I firmly believe homosexuality violates God's law, I also believe that no human government has any rational basis for denying homosexuals the right to marry."

I truly appreciate her ability to maintain her deeply-felt religious beliefs without feeling those beliefs should be codified into law. This to me is the essence of the strength of democracy - the ability to respectfully acknowledge our differences and find reasonable ways to coexist.

I do hope that some day I will have the chance to marry my partner for two simple reasons. One is to have access to the same legal protections of any straight couple. The second is to ensure that our daughter never has to feel her government views her parents as deviant second-class citizens.

Being gay is a non-issue in our lives - its one part of who we are, but it is certainly not our defining characteristic. I often wish that people could find a way past the "ew" factor - the mental image that they immediately conjure when they hear someone's gay. Because once you get beyond that, our lives are no different then yours, chock-full of checkbooks to be balanced and snotty toddler noses to be wiped. Giving my family access to the same rights most families take for granted harms no one, and puts my gayness right back where it belongs - as something between me, my partner and our family.

Thanks Tertia for raising this issue and thanks to the commenters for having a respectful dialogue.

[Brandy]

Gay marriage in not right in my believes. But I also do things that are not right with my believes. I also don't believe that the government should be able to tell two people who love each other that they can't get married. There are a lot of other things I don't believe our government (US) should be able to tell us we can't do, but they do it anyway. It really sucks. You should have seen the mess in my state (deep in the south) last year when we had a vote on gay marriages. I might have been the only person who voted that it should be legal.
But I don't believe my religion should keep someone else from doing something. I believe God gave us a right to decide what we do with our lives.

[RainbowW]

okay, see here's the deal, at least in the states.

in the bible -- you know, that book that nobody reads -- it says to stone the fags.

and of course the bible, with its many contradictions (starting right in chapter 1 with TWO -- count em TWO -- creation stories), is the inerrant word of big daddy, junior and the spook, and it would be ... well ... beyond rude .. to try and THINK for ourselves.

cuz you know, we're supposed to stay stuck in the middle ages.

it's what jheezus wants.

just ask linda.

[Egg Donor]

Of course, I'm with all the tolerant comments above.

The religious ones get me, though. Sure, the bible says don't be gay, but it also says don't commit adultery. Yet, there is no visible movement of people saying that people who cheated on their spouse should 1) have their marriage rights removed or, if they get divorced 2) be forbidden to marry again. Why is that? Linda is at least consistent (and, frankly, more tolerant than a lot of anti-gay marriage people in that she's ok with unions).

I'd like someone who is opposed to gay marriage to tell me why adulterers, who are proven threats to the sanctity of the institution and violating the law of god, should be allowed to marry but gays shouldn't.

And on the opposition to being gay in general: The bible says a lot of things - it says it's ok for men to beat their wives and parents to beat their children. It says that women should be submissive to their husbands. There are some pretty far out there people who still believe this is true, but the majority of people in human rights respecting cultures do NOT believe that we should take that literal interpretation of the bible. We believe that was written a long time ago and it's outdated and not REALLY the will of god, but just some old dead guys giving us 2000-year-old social norms that don't apply anymore. So why this hang up on the gay part? Any woman who thinks being gay is wrong should quit her life, go home, and start submitting.

[Egg Donor]

p.s. I'm maybe biased - my dogs are gay ;)

[Jaqa]

Ironic isn't it. In my comment I thank other commenters for keeping the discussion respectful, and then RainbowW posts.

I tempted fate, didn't I.

[Molly]

As a gay woman, I have trouble reading all of the arguments opposing same-sex marriage--not because I find them to be offensive, but because frankly, they make very little sense to me.

9 times out of 10, what I hear people say is that the bible says homosexuality is wrong, so gays should not be able to get married. I don't see the logic in this. The bible also says that adulterous women should be stoned, but we don't do that, now, do we? Today's society all too frequently picks and chooses the parts of the bible that it feels should be applied to today's society, and I find that to be highly hypocritical.

What Linda said about how marriage should take place between Christians only seems absolutely bizarre to me. In the states, marriage is a legal right, not a religious one. Plus we have that whole separation of church and state deal, so frankly, I'm confused.

People have a right to believe whatever they want to believe in the context of their own religion. HOWEVER, (at least here in the states) that religion does not have a right to dictate the law. Saying that gay people should not get married because the bible says so just does not fly.

[marguerite]

Marriage is a legal institution. It conveys various benefits on the married couple, i.e., statutory right to inherit, right to financial support, marital privilege with respect to testifying, etc. Legal marriage also imposes obligations, e.g., higher tax rates. Religions have benefits and obligations in connection with marriage, but they are different from the legal aspects of marriage. OK, so what. So this: legal marriage and religious marriage are different. Somehow, though, opponents of gay marriage refuse to separate the legal aspects of marriage from the religious. Why? If two men love each other, commit to each other, support each other, pay taxes, and fulfill all the obligations to each other and society that is expected from married people, why shouldn't they receive the benefits that society extends to married couples? God says that a gay man should not be able visit his comatose lover in the hospital because he is not family? Really? Linda, you know this? This is what God says? God says that a lesbian cannot love her lover's biological daughter like a daughter? Even if she was there during pregnancy, and at birth, and through all those nighttime feedings, and helped with homework every night, and made dinner, and worked to earn money so that birth mother and daughter had a place to live and food to eat and clothes to wear and tuition, and everything else? These two people should not be able to call each other wife? If one dies, the other should not be able to inherit the house that they lived in unless they had the foresight to get all the paperwork right and draft an iron-clad will? God really says that? Most people recognize that it is inherently unfair to withhold societal benefits from law-abiding members of society. The meager rationale of religious belief, which is different for everyone, is simply not enough to continue this blatant inequity. So the question you're asking, Tertia, is the one everyone is asking. I haven't heard a compelling answer yet.

[PP]

For a very long time now, the vast majority of marriages have been between one man and one woman. Whether it was a standard dictated by law or religion, many, many cultures around the world have accepted it.

Now, people want to change that standard and say it can be between two women, or two men. And I don't have any problems with that. It doesn't threaten my marriage. At all.

However, I get a little nervous when we redefine the conditions of marriage. If we accomidate homosexuals (which we should) do we also need to accomidate polygamy? Again, it wouldn't affect my life, or threaten my marriage at all. And again, at it's essence, I dont have a problem with it. If a two, three, four mature and loving people want to get married, who am I to stop them?

But, as long as we are redefining marriage...What if someone wants to marry a child? What if that child wants to marry them back? Here, I get nervous. We could argue that the child is not mature enough to make a wise decision. But then again, neither are many adults.

I do think that marriage is sacred, whether it is between two men or a man and a woman, and, though I may be flamed for saying so, If three people want to get married, as long as I am tolerating homosexuals, I probably should tolerate them too. But I do think there needs to be a line somewhere, and my only concern about rewriting the laws of marriage are these: when do we need to draw that line, and who gets to decide where we put it?

[Paige]

I'm all for gay marriage, but don't understand your question. People are opposed to it for as many reasons as people are for or against the war, abortion, ivf, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. It's just another divisive issue.
BTW, here in the U.S. many gay marriage proponents were angry that it became a national issue in a presidential election year, because they felt that the country as a whole wasn't ready for gay marriage and the debate gave the Republicans, and the conservatives, more power.

[Polly]

This is a huge issue in the U.S. now as several states have had 'marriage amendments' on their election ballots which seek to be sure that marriage is only between one man and one woman.

I am Christian, and it is rather painful for me to read the couple of comments here posted so far where people are actually bashing the Bible (even if you don't agree with it, aren't you seeking 'tolerance?!') Please do not bash my Savior or the Bible, no matter how strongly you feel you are opposed to it. I wouldn't do that to you.

As a Christian I really focus on the life of Christ and what He taught. And Christ Himself mentioned the sin of love of money more than homosexuality, yet we live in such a commercialized, materialistic culture (even some Christians I know are rather wrapped up in their 'stuff'), and it is so seldom mentioned that our culture is choking on its own sin of greed while so much of the world starves.

My own view is that homosexuality is a sin, just as premarital sex is a sin (and I committed that sin!), just as coveting is a sin (Guilty there!), lying (convicted!)....you get the picture, and Romans says we have ALL sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. ALL of us, every one.

I mean, sin is sin. we are humans. To say that one sin is worse than another is hypocritical. My sin as a straight married Christian woman is no worse than the sin of another who lives a different lifestyle. The day I believe that my sin is less than anyone else's, or that others have sinned more, is the day I have truly strayed from my faith. This is a hard pill for many Christians to swallow, as they like to think they're pious (but beware false piety--pious is walking with God, not looking good for others!), but my sin is just as 'bad' as the sin of a serial killer. This is so painful.

I do think that this focus on prohibiting gays from being married is a convenient way to circumvent the real issues of our times. Why the focus on that? I do believe that marriage is a sacred thing that occurs between one man, one woman, and God. But you know, that's the church. Church and state are separate, and if the state wants to recognize 'marriage' (a union, whether or not a church chooses to condone it via a religious ceremony), it is not going to be the end of the world nor the end of the church NOR the end of the 'religious' marriage, and certainly not the end of Christ in the world. I strongly believe that focusing on the issue of gay marriage is a way for people to try to feel they are doing God's work, but God's work needs to be done in feeding the hungry and the poor. I'm not saying it is NOT an issue at all, but I'm saying that it is a distraction from the many good things we can do to make this world a better place and bring the people of the world closer to Christ.

My own opinion is that there are worse fates of this world than allowing homosexual people to be married. I mean, let's take a global perspective: starvation, hunger, rampant AIDS, Third World debt...there are so many things we can do to heal the earth. I do not agree with ordaining gay marriage in the church, but i can say I have many better things to do with my time than fight this in the government. The old saying is that you attract more flies with honey than vinegar--and I don't want to see the church driving people away from Christ over this one issue. Plus--just because the government allows something does not change the church in any way.

Jesus said the greatest commandment is to love the Lord God with all your heart, soul and mind. The second is to love your neighbor as yourself. So what I seek to do as a Christian is Love God FIRST and above all else, and then to love my neighbor--and that means every single person on this earth.

Let he who has no sin cast the first stone.

[victoria]

I haven't read all the comments, but I thought debi did a pretty good job of articulating the anti-gay marriage stance.

I grew up in the American South so I am familiar with many of the anti-gay arguments. One of my friends once said to me, "the reason society shouldn't tolerate homosexuals is that it encourages homosexuality. There is a population of people who are on the fence and could go either way. We need to strongly encourage that group to be straight so they get married and have children because the world needs children and the family structure is important to a coherent society. Having children changes people and makes them more responsible, better citizens, etc. Too many childless adults is a destabilizing force in society." [Note: I do NOT share this view, am just reporting it.]

I've also heard it said that same-sex couples shouldn't have children. If a lesbian couple gets pregnant via ART what if they have a boy who will need a male role model? [Well, what about all the imperfect hetero parents, I want to respond. The possibility of imperfection doesn't warrant depriving them of the right to be parents.]

[victoria]

Also, "Let he who has no sin cast the first stone" is wrong. It should be, "Let HIM who has no sin cast the first stone." "Let him cast the first stone" is the independent clause in that sentence. It is a stand-alone, complete sentence in itself. So for exactly the same reason you wouldn't say, "Let he cast the first stone," you cannot say "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." "Who has no sin" doesn't determine the case of any pronoun in the independent claus. "Who has no sin" is a just a hanger on, a mere relative clause that just modifies "him."

[Sarah]

I would just like to hear from someone who is gay and considers themself a Christian as well. Are there any of you out there? I imagine there are many and I just keep wondering how members of this group would feel about the religious versus legal aspects of marriage issue. I am neither very religious nor a lesbian but I can imagine that if I were both it might be important to me that my marriage be considered a convenent between me, my partner and God and some people (Linda?) who argue that something like a civil union is the best that gay individuals can ever expect would probably highly offend me. Any Christian homosexuals out there?

[Danni]

The thing that suprises me about homosexuality and the right to marriage debate is the labels... In all reality, the labels are what separates everyone. 'One of two mommies' identifies herself as a lesbian, obviously doing so in light of her comment. But in every day life, we come across so many people, who instead of saying 'I am in a committed relationship' they say 'I am a lesbian/gay man in a committed relationship'. Why does our society place so much emphasis on labelling/identifying sexual orientation. Of course it is somewhat controversial, but the reason for this astounds me... Homosexuality has been around for centuries. The bible talks about it. But we still have problems coming to terms with it today?
I am a Christian, and I have learnt that despite what direction we are given (from the Bible, the Church etc) we should show love and compassion in everything we do. So the Christian faith may not support or believe in homosexuality, but does that mean that the basic human rights of these people should be denied? Of course not! Obviously there will be many that oppose it, and they have that right - if they choose to believe that marriage is a sacred union for man and wife, fine, so be it. But everyone deserves equal rights despite their ethnicity, race, age, sexual orientation and gender.

[Angela]

"the answer to your question then isn't 'because i don't like it' but 'because God doesn't like it'."

Even going by that theory, then we're assuming the two of the same sex who are married will go to hell. And honestly, how is it anyone else's business if someone wants to go to hell for the person they love?

I hate that it's not legalized in the USA. I know that it's not because it goes against the bible. But there is supposed to be a seperation of church and state, so in the end, the bible should have nothing to do with what's right and what's wrong. Be offended by whatever you like, but this country should be run the way its' laws state, and that includes not basing laws on the beliefs of religions. People of all religions - and a lack of - should be considered. Not only that, but we are supposed to be entitled to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". What more pursuit of happiness is there than to be forever bonded to the person you love??

On a lighter note, I heard a comedian once say that at least when homosexuals marry, they won't be using tax dollars to raise children - because if they have the money to adopt, they likely have the money to raise the children. I thought that was a somewhat funny way of saying "so how is it anyone else's business?"

[marguerite]

Contract law provides convenient line-drawing for those who are concerned about marriage between adults and children. Children cannot enter into valid contracts because they are deemed not to be of the age when consent can be given. So, unless compelling reasons are shown for changing the child consent laws, then this possibility shouldn't cause anyone any nervousness. (An aside: the ferocious urge in some law-and order types to charge children as adults for some crimes might take us one step toward adult-child marriage. Have to think about that.) I have also heard that gay marriage would open the door to marriage with animals. They can't consent either, so let's not worry about that. And polygamy? I never know how that works, I can sometimes barely tolerate one other adult in my household. So I'll hold off on that one for now.

[Karly]

This is something that my husband and I argue about whenever it is brought up. I firmly believe that gay marriage should be allowed, he does not. My arguement is that it is discrimatory to not allow it. A company would not be allowed to fire an employee only because they are gay. The government does not allow that. How can the government then not allow gay marriage? Its discrimination. Chad's argument is that if we allow gay marriage, why not allow marriage to a mother and son? What is the difference? And, you know...thats a tough one to answer...I always say because it is just wrong to allow incest. He says it is just wrong to allow gay marriage. Someone give me a good arguement so I can beat him in this. LOL.

[Polly]

Let HIM (or her) who has no sin cast the first stone. Grammar lesson certainly appreciated, message remains the same.

[Leia]

Tertia,

People have very strong religious beliefs against homosexuality - it's rare that the Bible uses the word 'abomination,' but it is applied to homosexuality. That being said, I don't think we can legally deny homosexual couples "rights" to the societal benefits that straight couples have. (at least here in the U.S. with division of church and state)

I, however, don't think it should be called marriage. And I believe that it should be left to the individual state to decide, since the Constitution does not expressly give that power to the central Government.

I don't hate homosexuals, but I don't agree with the practice. I have friends who are homosexual, and there's a lot of strain sometimes between us because of it, but they ARE people just like any other people. Some are loving, some are not. Some are kind, some are responsible, etc.

The materialism that was brought up by Polly is definitely a rampant problem, too. It's more evident around this time of year, even with Christians. Indeed, I'm going shoppping today and am a little afraid. XD

[Paige]

PS would love to hear from one Christian out there who believes that being gay is a sin, whether they believe that people willingly sin or (as most research into sexuality shows) are born to sin, and if so, why would a loving God create people to sin?

[Leia]

Paige, I'll take you up on that. I believe that people are born sinful because of the fall from God's ways. Some people are prone to stealing, some to lying, some to homosexuality. I think everyone struggles with some sin on a daily basis - entertaining those thoughts or acting on them are the actual sin. I hope that makes sense. :)

[Karen Little]

I'm particularly proud that the bill was passed - it makes our country freer than the Land of the Free. It shows that in this country we have the insight to acknowledge you can't legislate how two people choose to express their love for each other.

[jc]

Hey Linda, my bible says "judge not, lest ye be judged." It isn't anyone's place to judge anyone else, Christian or otherwise, we just don't have that right.

As for gay marriage, I don't understand the religious argument, either. If you believe that it is a sin, then don't do it! How is it any of your business what anyone else does? Do your religious property rights go down if you let gays in the marriage neighbourhood? I just don't understand the fracas over terminology, why can't gay marriage be called a marriage? The divorce rate doesn't make my marriage less stable and a same sex marriage won't make my husband and I less hetero. Admittedly, I got married in Vegas, so what do I know about sacred?

[Polly]

Now I had not planned to say another word, but Paige's question is so good. (By the way, I'm not a theologian, so please understand that all I am is a part-time attorney and full-time Christian, without any sort of formal training AT ALL.) The question you ask is basically the heart of Christianity! I asked a very similar question of my sister when I was struggling with some of these issues (and she IS a theologian, so she should really be writing this!).

I have absolutely no idea whether homosexuality is a choice or whether people are born homosexual, though I know many Christians believe it is the former. But for me it doesn't matter much, although it's kind of a fascinating issue in itself, because the real issue is just what you asked: why would a loving God create people to sin?

The idea is that God created humanity in His image, and thus blissfully unaware of sin, pure, etc. Walking around blind in the Garden of Eden or that kind of thing. ;) Sin is a result of the Fall of humankind--the influence of God's opposing force in the world, a.k.a. Satan. (Interject Dana Carvey on Saturday Night Live as the Church Lady saying, 'could it be...Satan?!!') Christianity basically says that God was not happy with the fact that humans had sinned and thus began the Old Testament practices of sacrifices and other things that were meant to 'appease' God. God then decided to rescue us from our sins and send Jesus Christ into the world--God incarnate--who was destined to die on the cross as a sacrifice (a la the Old Testament) so that all humankind is now 'rescued' from our state of sin. Jesus' crucifixion was planned by God (thus finger-pointing on 'who killed Jesus' is a waste, as the sin of the world necessarily killed Him). It liberated humanity from being shackled to the legalism and rituals that had to occur before in order to win God's favor or ask His forgiveness. Now we are just forgiven, and there is nothing we can do to get 'to God' to earn salvation or eternal life (i.e., sin doesn't cause someone to go to hell!!!). God did it for us, it is His gift of Grace, and all we have to do is accept it.

So why would a loving God create people to sin? I think the answer to that, and again, I'm no pastor or theologian, is that God created us, the Fall basically said everyone will sin. All of our sins are different. It's not that the loving God created us TO sin, it's that we do it inevitably as part of our wordly human nature, and the loving God throws His hands out for every single one of us just like the father welcoming the prodigal, undeserving son back into his home. It's not that God 'wants' us to sin, it's that He knows it's inevitable and loves us anyhow, and that's why He gave us the gift of grace. We can't earn our way into heaven. We can just accept that God did a great thing for us in sending His son into the world. EVERY ONE of us, gay, straight, greedy, jealous...whatever our individual sins.

God's love is manifest in the fact that no matter how much we sin or what we do, He'll love us anyhow. I was at a retreat once when someone said that the love of God for everyone on earth is like the unconditional love of a parent for his or her child. My parents said that no matter what we did, they'd deeply and passionately love us anyhow. (They might not LIKE what we do, but they'll love us anyhow.) That's how it is with God, too, and why you hear the phrase "God's children." Which is the entire world, not just Christians.

[Nicole]

Think on this - in the not too distant past some US states still had laws against interracial marriages. And many believed it was an abomination and against God's law.

I agree with Kay on two points. 1. Climbing divorce rates, casual marriages, etc, put hetero marriages in far greater jeopardy than gay marriage. 2. I can't see why the gov't is involved in sanctioning what most people regard as a religious sacrament. imo - the gov't should only provide for and recognize civil unions - marriage should be left to the religious institutions. Democracy NOT Theocracy.

Lastly, as to the Biblical arguments - I put forth the proposition that God's law is a living word. Even within the Bible itself, God's law can be shown to change and grow - take for example Lev 21 and Isaiah 56. In the first part you see that eunuch's were forbidden to offer sacrifices at the altar b/c of their 'defect'- but yrs later that was reversed. Furthermore - I think it is important that we not forget Jesus words in Matt 23:23. Yes, it is important to keep the law, but not if we go so far as to forget "justice, mercy, and faithfulness."

[Katie]

I really appreciate and agree with Polly's comments.

[Jo]

My opinion? I think that whether or not you oppose gay marriage has a lot to do with how you think a person becomes gay. If you believe (as I do) that a person is born gay, then by and large, I think you support the legal protections that are given to people and families through marriage (you know, stuff like being able to inherit, being able to make medical decisions). If, like some others (many of them of the religious stripe) believe that being gay is a "choice", then you are likely to oppose gay marriage. I honestly do not see how gay people being married has any impact on anyone else's marriage or life. However, if you believe that homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice", then I suppose you would consider the threat of gay marriage to be somehow telegraphing to kids that it's okay to "chose" this "lifestyle". I would ask them: at what point in your life did YOU chose to be heterosexual? :)

That's just how I see it. And yeah, I have a sister who is gay (and in the most stable relationship in my entire family, for what it's worth).

[Jaqa]

Its an interesting approach to align homosexuality with a variety of other sins and then try to encapsulate it all with "well, we all sin... so..."

My understanding of Christianity is that while you acknowledge that you're a sinner, you're striving to, well, stop sinning. Even though you accept you will fail, the goal is to sin as little as possible.

So where does that leave me? If being a lesbian puts me in a perpetual state of sin, and if I'm not working to stop being gay, I'm pretty much working at odds with God.

Seems like we're looking for a theological loophole here. I appreciate the perspective that its coming from - the idea that its not Christian to judge is certainly a welcome concept. I'm just not feeling so great about being grandfathered in under the big tent of "unavoidable sins".

[Jo]

P.S. I encourage the Christians out there to pull out their New Testaments and read Leviticus (which is such a popular book to quote where homosexuality is concerned). You know what else is an "abomination"? Eating shellfish. I think there is a lot of selective quoting of scripture to support certain positions, and some very convenient ignoring of other stuff that is (in my opinion) equally questionable in a modern context.

[Jo]

last post -- of course I meant the Old Testament.

[Orange]

Jamie wrote: "I do not think that gays should be allowed to get married in a church or by a 'preacher'." I say: What about Unitarian churches where same-sex marriage is accepted? You'd tell the Unitarians how to run their church?

Linda wrote: "Non christians should not be married- gay or straight." I say: Wow! Really? No Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, or atheists should be able to marry? That's a mighty bold statement. Fortunately, I've never heard it elsewhere.

I'm an atheist, and for me, "because God/Jesus/the Bible said so" is an argument that has never held water. Polly's comment is quite possibly the best blog comment I've ever read from a religious individual, though. Crystal clear, thoughtful, candid.

[Orange]

(I'm talking about Polly's first comment—haven't read the follow-up.)

[Melina]

Okay, first, I support gay marriage completely and utterly.

I think it matters to people who think it matters not entirely on the basis of religion, but because of the way that the nation as a basis for collective identity invokes the family....

The family is an ideological institution very much linked to the nation, that most ideological institution. The idealized family, in all its gendered and reproductive glory, has been understood as the building block of the nation (both in population and through socialization) and the nation in miniature. White racists in the US define the nation as white (and Christian) and thus object to "racial mixing" in families. I think the gay marriage issue hits at a fundamental understanding of the family as linked to the reproduction of a broader collective idea. I think it is about homophobia and religion, but also about people feeling like they are part of a Christian nation and that families are a way of maintaining that particular identity.

[Polly]

Jaqa--That is a good comment indeed. I did not qualify this in my earlier post and I may get blasted for this because I would imagine some Christians do not agree, but I do not think walking around on the street as a lesbian is any more a sin than walking around a street as a heterosexual person. (Which is why it doesn't matter much to me whether we are 'born' straight or homosexual.) My understanding is that the act of choosing sexual sin (whether it is extra-marital sex for homosexual, heterosexual, etc.) is the sin itself. I.e., acting on it. I believe, and I know others may not, that merely 'being' lesbian doesn't make you any more of a sinner than 'being' human.

Yes, I think that as a Christian you do strive to stop sinning, but it's more than anything a matter of just accepting God's grace and living in Grace. This does go against the legalism that Christians often embrace, but Jesus came to liberate us into grace. Brennan Manning's "The Ragamuffin Gospel" is a good one--he struggled w/ alcoholism, among other things.

I think it's clever to say a theological loophole because with tough issues like this sometimes it feels like that for sure. Good phrase.

My own firm belief is that you can definitely be a lesbian and Christian, you're not at odds with God more than anyone else, His grace is sufficient for each of our individual lives. Perhaps that sounds simplistic, but I believe it is true. I don't know if that helps or not. It leaves you as a beloved child of God.

I was at a retreat a month ago where during a private prayer time one of the participants came to me and wanted to pray about an issue in her life. Turns out she is lesbian and feels called to the ministry, but didn't know what to do because of the 'climate,' as she said, and I knew just what she meant. I wept so hard with her. I was praying God would help me out because I just had no idea how to handle such a huge issue (I'm not trained in theology!) and she was in so much pain, and I could tell she was truly called. All I could do was pray for help and speak from the heart. What ended up coming out of my mouth was a paraphrase of Psalm 139, that He has searched her and knows her, and all the days ordained for her were written in God's book before she was even born, and that He would give her the wisdom to make her choice. I know she knows Him and that He'll guide her, and I've said prayers for her choice ever since. I still want to talk to one of my friends, a female pastor, about it, for more insight.

From your past comment you're a mother and have been with the same partner for 12 years. When it is all said and done it seems that you've got a firm foundation and a stable relationship, and there are loads of children out there who do not have that. Like I mentioned before, I feel that there are much bigger issues to tackle in this world other than whether homosexual individuals can be married (and like I said my view is that it's okay to keep the church and state separate). That's the political issue.

As for the religious issue, the best I can offer is that God's grace is yours as much as it is anyone else's. I know it's hard and it may not satisfy you, but His grace is sufficient for each of us. I'm an attorney so I can work my way through a loophole ;) but that's no loophole, that is just His love for us.

[Val]

If Marriage is so sacred, why then do the Brittany Spears and celebrities alike get to wed and then divorce so easily and so quickly?? Marriage is not sacred anymore. The divorce rate is the highest it has been since, well the beginning of time. I think these religious freaks are just scared that Homosexuals can "do" marriage right, as in stay married longer and actually keep the committment better than Heterosexuals.
Ignorance is a very scary thing. Those against gay marriage are blind to the fact that the government is violating a minorities civil rights. People didn't want women to vote (and eventually they realized they were wrong). People believed in segregation (again eventually they realized they were wrong). History will repeat itself. These people will eventually see the error in their ways, and one day, those of us who wait so patiently will recieve our reward... a simple recognition of the love we have for one another.

[Paige]

Will all you "Christians," please stop speaking for the entire faith. I'm a Christian, I go to church every Sunday, and have no problem with homosexuality. It's important to note there is diversity within Christianity.
I think it is interesting to watch you get caught up in these convoluted explanations for why God is against gays, even though he made him. Wouldn't it be easier to just leave the judging up to God?

[Michele]

Read Linda's comment and raced to the bottom .... because it made me laugh, really.

According to Linda ... I'm not married!! I'll have to let the husband know that we're not married when he gets home tonight.

Marriage does not equal religious ceremony. It does not belong to Christians. When Christians get on their soapbox and claim that marriage is a sacrament allowed only to them it just magnifies those opinions that those Christians are holier than thou - which is totally what Jesus was not about.

As agnostics my husband and I were married by a justice of the peace - my aunt - in a very lovely ceremony in a park by a lake. To say that my husband and I are not married is offensive to me.

Gay couples should be afforded the same rights as straights. Making an ammendment to the constitution denying them of that seems to go against everything that the constitution is about - giving rights.

Then again, there are people somewhere out there who still think it's a sin to dance. If that's true I'm *so* going to hell.

[Polly]

Paige--I am not sure if your comment was directed at me, but I sense that it was. As for the explanation about God making people the way we are, I was answering a question that was posed (as for that being convoluted, it's based on theology, which can be confusing, but I apologize if I sounded convoluted and confusing.) As for God being 'against' homosexuals, I do not believe that He is, any more than He is against any of us, which He is not. And as for judging, I was attempting to give an explanation that is as close to theological as a non-theologian can get, and without judgment.

I agree that there is great diversity in the Christian faith and I don't think it is poor to speak for the entire faith in saying that God's grace is poured out on each one of us, as that is that basis of our faith: God's love through Christ.

If the question had not been posed, I would have never tried to explain it anyhow (my first post was the only one I intended to make, but the question on why a loving God would 'make' us a certain way was interesting to me and I did my best). I tried and if I failed, I apologize. I wasn't trying to speak for the faith in explaining that, but was trying to give as good a theological explanation I could because of the question posed. Which leaves me open for attack, I know.

[V]

I live in Massachusetts where gay marriage is legal. I'm also going to my first gay wedding in a few months and I couldn't be happier for my two friends.

You know that with the post you'll have all the crazy bible thumpers come running spewing their nonsense. Nothing they say can change my opinion so I'm not even going to go there...

[Spacemom]

Tertia-

My goodness, I actually read all of the comments!

First, I have no issue with marriage being defined as "a lifetime commitment between two people to live together as a family".

I don't see a need to bring G-d into it at all! The United States (and my happy little commonwealth, Massachusetts) allows for civil marriages. Why these should be limited between a man and a woman instead of two people is beyond me.
This is a CIVIL LEGAL CONTRACT. That's it.

Me thinks too many people try to decide if others are sinning and if they should be stopped. I really wish people would just mind their own business.

BTW- I laugh at Linda's remark about marriage.
I am civilly married to my husband. The Reform Jewish community recognises our marriage. I am not sure about the Conservative comminuty as in I am NOT Jewish, but we did NOT use the traditional vows in our wedding so that I did not make false statements at my wedding.

[Chickenpig]

Recently in my state (Connecticut, USA) there were open debates about this issue on TV. I believed that gays should be able to marry before I saw this program, but I was down right angry that they shouldn't have these rights afterwords. There was a very eloquent police officer who had been a first responder during 9/11, whose partner, a firefighter, was killed. He spoke about not being given any information about his partner of over 15 years at any hospital because he wasn't a relative, about not being able to take possesion of his body, or of his personal affects, of losing their apartment because the lease was in his partner's name, and etc. It was horrible what this man had to go through just because he and his partner were a gay couple and not "married" in the eyes of the law. CT allows civil unions for gay couples now, but I don't think it is the same.

[Paige]

Polly,
Actually my comments were not directed at you alone. You sound nice and reasonable, and of course it's reasonable for YOUR CHURCH to oppose gay marriage or any other practice.
But surely you believe in separation of church and state, no? This is not a debate over whether churches should allow gay marriage. Theology should not come into play.
Also, you can go on and on about the "hate the sinner, love the sin," philosophy (I paraphrase), but you gotta know that condemning the practice can only spew hatred toward a large group of people.
Also, I think that other person's comment about shellfish, and how the bible describes that as an abomination, is a good one.
Do any Christians out there who literally follow the bible abstain from eating shellfish? I don't mean that as a joke. I'm curious why/or why not.

[Elle]

I usually take a hard line approach on this. Gay marriage should be legalized, what other people do in their private time is none of my business, and in fact, I think there are great benefits to legalizing gay marriage, especially for children. But this discussion, and it's arguments, have got me thinking.

People are quick to jump to the conclusion that invoking God is an invalid argument. Full of holes. Fine and good, as an atheist I certainly don't want to take his supposed translated by humans opinions into account either. But then when I start looking at my own arguments, I see the holes in my own logic as well. And even though I hate a ride on the infamous SLIPPERY SLOPE, I can't help but try and examine every point of view before reaching my own conclusion.

If we argue, for instance, that society has no business legislating the kind of relationships two consenting adults can have, regardless of gender-- then how do we feel about a brother and sister getting married? Or a parent and child, even, if they are above the age of consent? We could argue that in fact such a union DOES have the potential to hurt someone-- their offspring would be more susceptible to genetic abnormalities. But then so are lots of other couples. Should we forbid two African Americans from wedding, because of the increased risk of sickle cell anemia in that population? Or should we require exhaustive genetic tests on two people who want to be married? And then deny those who might produce defective children? Looking at other mammals, incest is not a guarantee of deformity as it is depicted. In two genetically healthy individuals, their incestuous offspring might be HEALTHIER than the general population. Suddenly the water is sieving out of that argument.

And then even less defensible, in the arguments for gay marriage, is the stance against polygamy. Many religions have a basis for polygamy including the Christian religion. It is ingrained in many societies and cultures. And it really is a stretch to see how three people being married can harm society more than gay marriage will. So should it, as well, be legalized? Where is the harm there? In fact, how many people can get married before we can be sure beyond a doubt that it is harmful to society?

In the end, I am for gay marriage not because of logical arguments, but because of a gut feeling that it is right, it is fair, it is for the good of society. But how is that any different from someone who is against it, on the same gut feeling (or perhaps religious beliefs)? And in turn, how is my gut feeling against incestuous marriages and polygamy any different from someone's gut feeling against gay marriage?

It is a complicated issue, more so than just "live and let live," and we have to take that into account before condemning someone else's arguments as invalid or silly. Even in ancient Rome, where homosexuality was perhaps even more accepted than in today's society, where it was considered that the purest love was between two men, where a bunch of renegade women took there leave of men to the island of Lesbos, even there, gay marriage was not practiced.

[Rhonda]

Hmmm. I think the question of "marriage" is a marketing issue. See, if you go to m-w.com (Merriam-Webster's dictionary site) and look up "xerox," you get two entries: One is capitalized and refers to the Xerox brand of xerographic copier, and the other is not capitalized and is a transitive verb that refers to making a xerographic copy on (any) xerographic copier, regardless of whether the copier is a Xerox brand. (This is relevant. Please stay with me.) This means that the brand name has been weakened. Companies fight against this, and encourage people to use the generic term (e.g. copy, photocopy) for a process or item rather than carelessly/improperly using the brand name when the actual brand is not represented.

So what does this have to do with gay marriage/same-sex unions? Marriage is not defined by a trademark that indicates that only certain religious/civil unions are Marriage brand (tm) civil unions, though some folks are apparently trying to do just that, by saying, "Gays should have the same rights, but don't call it marriage."

Or in Linda's case, "Non christians should not be married- gay or straight. Unioned with the same legal rights of course- but it is fundamentally different." See? She said that non-Christians, gay or straight, should be unioned with the same legal rights, but she wants to reserve that brand name for Christian marriages only. (And apparently only for her brand (sect) of Christian, because there are many sects of Christianity that perform gay marriages in their church...so does that mean that those gay Christians can call themselves married but my husband (atheist) and I (Jewish) can not? Hmmmm.)

So a lot of people are seeing this as a question of words: can you use a generic term to evoke the same assumed rights and emotional meanings as "marriage"? and I don't think so.

I say "married" and everyone understands what that means, that we love each other, that we fight sometimes, that we are a family even when we aren't getting along. When my husband had heart surgery and was in critical care afterward, I was allowed to sit by his bedside and nobody asked for proof that I had the right to do that. They didn't even check to see if I was wearing my wedding ring. and if, God forbid, my husband did not make it through after his surgery (which he did, thank God), nobody would question my right to make all the awful decisions have to be made at that point.

But if I showed up at the nurse's station and said, "I am so-and-so's domestic partner," would that nurse question me? Would they demand proof that local state law entitles me to sit and comfort my beloved in the hospital? If my beloved were female, would they question me or deny me that right? Would I need to bring my lawyer? Either everybody (even me!) needs to show proof of marriage or nobody does.

So you see, "married" is not a brand name. We can agree that "facial tissues" connotes everything about the disposable paper hankies you use to blow your nose so there is no reason to dilute the Kleenex brand name, but there is no widely-agreed-upon term that viscerally connotes everything that "marriage/married" connotes.

So if you feel that gays *shouldn't* have the right to fall in love and live together and be a couple for years and years, and sometimes not get along but mostly get by, and go on vacations together and squabble over who scrubbed the toilets last, and celebrate anniversaries, and grow old together, and sit by each other's bedside in Intensive Care, and decide how their partner's body and possessions should be disposed of after that person has died and mourn the loss of that person...well, I think that's heartless, but at least it's consistent.

But if you do agree that they have the right to do those things, there is no other word that sums that all up in a convenient package except marriage, so you might as well call it that.

[annie]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2006/11/15/notes111506.DTL&hw=morford&sn=001&sc=1000

Interesting and timely comment from liberal San Francisco on this topic.

[Jaqa]

Polly: thanks for your thoughtful response.

I wanted to clarify - personally I'm an agnostic, so my theological loophole concern is more practical then personal. However, I do feel strongly that as much as I would hope to have my views and life choices respected by my community and government, those with views that are divergent from mine should be treated respectfully as well.

I'm guilty of stereotyping as much as the next guy, and its been really refreshing to read comments from so many Christians struggling to align their religious beliefs with their commitment to tolerance and compassion. Living in the US with some pretty intense anti-gay rhetoric coming from the Religious Right, I would not have believed so many devout Christians would have spoken with the thoughtfulness I'm seeing here.

Always nice to have something make your question your assumptions!

[Karen]

Michele, I had to laugh at your comment about not being married. My husband (oopsie! Can I call him that???) were married in the atrium of a beautiful ballroom by a no longer practicing priest (he left to marry a nun!) So I guess we aren't married, either. Gah!

I'll have to go around saying we're "unioned" now or something.

That's what I don't get--if marriage is a contract between you and your husband and God, what if you don't believe in God, or don't know if he/she exists, and don't want to bring God into your marriage? So are you not married? I mean, if you have to call gay marriage a "union" because of the religious side to it, don't you also have to call marriages that happen in courthouses or outside or atriums of ballrooms "unions" too? I guess that's why I've been paying so many dues....

[Polly]

Hi Paige--Thanks for your clarification...yes I believe in separation of church and state (I put that in at least one of my comments, maybe the..first and...third? can't recall), actually as an attorney I operate on it professionally in several different ways. (And I might also add that my church doesn't oppose gay marriage--it's a split within our denomination right now b/c of course people have divergent views but ours is a liberal congregation.) I think I got very off-topic with talking about theology, really, and I do not oppose legal protection for gay couples. In my first comment that's where I was going with the statement that this issue seems to be a distraction from some of the real issues of our day (lack of health care in this country, poverty, hunger, and so on). At the end of the day to me it doesn't make much of a difference at all because I feel as Christians as well as citizens of the world we have much bigger 'fish to fry,' as they say.

I agree that condemnation can spew hatred and that's why I tried to include that bit on "The old saying is that you attract more flies with honey than vinegar--and I don't want to see the church driving people away from Christ over this one issue." I did not intend to condemn anyone (except everyone, in that we're all sinners). The problem I see in our faith today is that people focus on these 'me against you' issues and that isn't saving souls or fixing the world's problems. It's just dividing not just our nations but the church in itself, and that takes time, energy and money away from the things that really do need to be fixed.

Thanks for your comment. ;)

[Kathleen]

There is so much confusion on this issue.

Regarding marriages in churches, my church already allows gay marriage. So to say that gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry with the stipulation that it not be done in church makes no sence.

Churches are already free to marry who they like and turn down who they like. Same-Sex marriage rights cover only civil law.

This leads into people who are offended because they believe that "marriage" is a union between a man, a woman and God. Not my straight marriage. Our marriage was performed by a judge because we see it as a civil marriage.

Keeping in mind that the right to marry in a civil court has nothing to do with church weddings and/or what role God should play, what is the objection to same-sex marriage in civil law?

[Anne]

Something I find funny is that, here in the U.S. many people against gay marriage state that "traditional" marriage is between one man and one woman. Actually, if you take all of human history and most human cultures into account, "traditional" marriage has more often been between one man and several women (or girls, because historically, most women married in their early to mid-teens). Marriage, in the context of human history, has been less about "sacrament" and more about economic and social stability. In Japan, for example, arranged marriages in very wealthy families are still quite common, and are done to protect both families' resources, not with the spouses' happiness in mind.

Having been raised in late-20th century America, I am very comfortable and happy with the cultural norm that allowed me to choose my own spouse, and I did so because we love each other, get along well with each other and wanted to create a life together. But to proclaim that "marriage" is any one given thing is definitely taking a short sighted view.

I also think, however, that the argument that allowing gay marriage would "open the door" for adults to marry children, or people to marry their pets, is missing the point. We already have child protection laws that prevent adults from having sex with underage minors (and, I think in some states, there are laws against having sex with animals as well--anyone up on state bestiality laws?) The reason for this, as someone else stated, is that we as a society have decided that children do not have the emotional or cognitive maturity to enter into those kinds of relationships. So, unless people are planning to lobby against child sex abuse laws, or would prefer to have an unconsummated marriage to a child, this is really a nonissue.

As for polygamy, I lived in Utah for 5 years, and polygamy is still very much alive and well--in "Christian" enclaves. These communities, by the way, also justify their practices by referring to God's preferences. Personally, if all the parties are entering into the relationship as consenting adults, I don't really have a problem with it. However, because it is currently illegal, and "underground," many young teenage girls are manipulated or just plain beaten into it, and because these women (except for the first wife) are not legally married, they are able to collect TANF money from the government because they are officially "single" mothers--and the father is not legally liable for child support. Those are the only issues I have with it.

[Kathleen]

I also want to express my irritation that nearly every time same-sex marriages comes up, incestuous marriages and polygamy marriages come up. Talk about being disrespectful of marriage.

Yet, somehow, people can talk about straight people being married without making that leap.

Let's be clear. We are talking about an adult having the right to marry one person, of age, who they are not related too, etc. The only question to be decided is if that adult may choose to marry a person of their own sex or if they are legally limited to an opposite sex partner.

That's it.

Everything else that get's brought up is not the issue. All these other "slippery slope" arguements are used as noise and nonsence to get away from the basic question being asked. Make a question complicated enough and it never gets answered.

[Anne]

Actually, just to clarify my earlier post: even in polygamous relationships, the father, if he is proven to be so, would be *legally* liable for child support--but because of the underground nature of these relationships, I don't think this would ever get into the legal system.

[lorrie]

A consenting adult should be allowed to marry another consenting adult. Seems a no brainer to me!

My state (South Carolina) laid the smackdown on gay marriage last week. 78% voted NO.

Only 1 state in American has okd it so far with a popular vote & that was very close..Arizona, I think?

I can only conclude that the average SO CLOSE reader has very little in common with the average American voter...:(

[Michele]

I agree with everything Kathleen just said! Very well put!

Karen: "Marriage" is that annoying thing that's been sticking it's foot out and tripping you every time you think everything is going great. ;o)

[Tricia]

Just a nod of appreciation to Linda. Your explanation is right on and eloquently written. I think some people might be getting upset about your comments because they are so correct. Thanks for stepping up and putting your comments out here!

[Jaqa]

Tricia: Linda is saying that only Christian marriages are true marriages, even if its a marriage between a man and a woman, if its secular, or Jewish, Muslem, Hindu etc its not a "real" marriage.

This is what you think is "right on"?

While I appreciate that an individual's religious conviction might lead them to believe that only the marriages conducted in their church are valid in the eyes of their god, we're debating how government should define marriage.

Is it your contention that only Christian marriages should be recognized in democratic goverments? Forget gays, are you really saying that secular marriages, Jewish marriages and so on should not be considered valid by the state?

Just curious.

[Blue]

I do not see how a same sex couple publically joining themselves in a committed relationship could possibly lessen the relationship I have with my own husband. I just don't get it.

I have heard that married couples are now the minority in the U.S. so really, shouldn't all those "sinners" be voting as to what our rights should be?

[Torild Johanne]

I think religious opposition against gay marriage is an old political deciscion in disguise.

In the older days when people died of pneumonia and a community regularly lost a lot of men in constantly ongoing wars, it was a real challenge to keep up the popoulation.

Living conditions were harder than we can almost imagine.

In order to organise society into increasing the population, it was "smart" to ban homosexuality. -It was actually quite common in some societies to be gay - the ancient greek for example.

Newer research has found out that althoug we are not all gay, a lot of people have a gay and a heterosexual side. The level of each scale may vary a lot during a life time.

My hypothesis is that if we had no boundaries against same-sex relationships at all, a lot more people than today would practise homsexual relatinships or sex, at least in periods of their life. And that would threat the population number and family life. As would also infidelity . but that at least has potential of making more babies and was not a sin at the same level.

Think about it - before the "scientific revolution", how much didn't it mean to have a solid number of people for a society in order to preserve itself?

Anyway, now in different times and times where individuality is recognised as important - it's part of a natural progress to change the law - be it the "law" in religious or pure legal terms.

But I don't condemn the church or rather the establishment, for having condemnded homosexuality more than for having supressed individuals before the common good in many other contexts.

It has been a matter of organising mankind into optimal survival.

[victoria]

Something else we should keep in mind during this debate: "Jesus' teachings are about love and forgiveness" is correctly written. But please be aware that all OTHER proper nouns ending in "s" are made possessive with an apostrophe s just like other names that do NOT end in s. So you would write, "St. James's teachings are helpful to me," NOT "St. James' teachings." Strunk & White, Elements of Style. :-)

[terri c]

queer Christian chiming in here. The verses in the Bible that have been interpreted as condemning homosexuality total 7. Biblical scholars are not in agreement about the interpretation of these, and different churches hold different interpretations. Some churches in the US do bless same-gender unions and others do not; these matters are hotly contested. I do not, myself, believe the seven verses hold sufficient weight for blanket condemnations, especially since "gay" and "lesbian" as we understand these did not appear to be known concepts in Biblical times. However, my interpretation is a matter of faith for me, and I understand that others' faith will tell them different.

The arguments that if we open civil rights to same-gender-loving people we will soon have bestiality, adult-child marriage, and etc., are examples of "slippery slope" argument which usually don't stand up. For instance, marriage involving children does not follow from "gay marriage," because children cannot give legal consent--whereas adults of same gender can do so. A different category entirely.

For some, I think that "tolerance" for something they find deeply repugnant feels the same as "approval;" in fact, anything but vigorous opposition to the thing, whatever it is, feels like "approval." One surely sees that emotion in the arguments against gay marriage, where some opponents truly cannot in conscience say that what others do should not affect them.

It's complicated, for sure.

[Katie]

I think people confuse marriage as being totally a religious act. It is a civil process and some religious have ceremonies for it. Regardless of your religion when you marry you still need a civil marriage license for it to be binding.

[bean]

We live in Australia, and I would like to marry my girlfriend of
nearly four years because I'm a bit of a conservative lesbian. (And because I love her very much!)
I usually like to fit in with everyone else as much as possible. I
really did honestly try to be married to a boy, but it was a case of
square peg in round hole, I'm afraid! :-)
Anyway, after 7 embryo transfers (and many more tries at home), I
finally seem to be pregnant and the changes this will hopefully bring
obscure any petty issues I might have with John Howard and his
loathsome party.

[Terry]

Actually Katie, it's the other way around. Marriage has it roots in religion and it has developed a civil/legal component. I think you have it confused. :)

[Robin from TLOL]

(quoting from something I wrote just the other day)

It makes me so very sad that all those amendments passed in so many US states. Why on earth should I or anyone else feel threatened because someone else has found love in a different place. Sigh...

Love and commitment should be celebrated and honored, no matter who it's between, and gays have as much right to the benefits of a legally recognized marriage/union/whatever as anyone else.

Feeling very sad about the lack of tolerance and acceptance for others that this shows...

[Andrea]

Well I have pretty strong feelings on this issue, as I can see many people here do (some expressed their feelings tastefully and some are quite ugly, always *so* convincing @@). But I keep falling back on this thought when I consider this issue... We heterosexuals have taken the dignity out of the marriage sacrament pretty well ourselves... so I can't be too worried that gay marriage would "ruin marriage" for the rest of us.

I have much stronger feelings on marriage and fidelity and faithfulness and the sore lack of them in so many marraiges than I do on same sex marriage.

[Susy]

You said it, Andrea. Between Britney Spear's two marriages (including the one that lasted all of 55 hours yet was completely legitimate in the eyes of the law) and people getting drunk in Las Vegas and stumbling into a chapel at 3:AM to be wed by an Elvis impersonator, the hetero community has pretty much soiled the concept on its own.

[Shandra]

Terri C., I'm with you.

As far as I'm concerned, Jesus is the model for Christianity. I don't think he said anything about homosexuality (I could be wrong). He sure did say an awful lot about rich people though.

In any case I see no reason one set of religious beliefs should dictate marriage. As a Canadian I see it the way the Supreme Court did. Marriage is a /contract/. It is against our Charter of Rights and Freedoms to discriminate against people on the basis of sex/gender. So, a marriage contract can be limited to two people, but it can't be limited to WHICH two people on the basis of their sex organs.

[SimoneG]

I'm happy for homesexual couples to get married. Why not?! As to the issue of homosexual couples raising children, well...I guess I'm still sitting on the fence. I agree that a child can get screwed up by heterosexual parents, and there's plenty of evidence to prove this. And yes, in single parent families there's often only one role model (usually a woman). I'd be interested to hear from the (adult) children of homosexual parents or to read some research on the long term effects of growing up with homosexual parents. This would probably help me to get off the fence, one way or the other. I do, however, firmly disagree with primary school-aged children being exposed to stories that feature same sex couples and families with same sex parents.

[vanessa]

It is always shocking to me that people can be so utterly ignorant that they will oppose gay marriage rather than deal with their own lives. Being gay is something you are born being. You do not CHOOSE to be gay. It is as natural as being straight.
I am afraid I cant even read these comments because I will get all worked up.
One thing about living in Washington DC is that everyone here--that I know anyway--is sensible enough to support gay marriage and not be homophobic bigots.

[kara]

in response to the argument that allowing gay marriage would open the door to polygamy, the sheer amount of legal issues would make this unlikely. for instance, if a man married eight women, would his employer be responsible for insurance benefits for all eight? would the women be married to each other or only to him? in healthcare scenarios, which wife would make the decisions? heterosexual marriage has already put down the framework for gay marriage whereas polygamous marriage would be a much more difficult institution to legalize.

[Katie]

Terry, thank you for pointing that out. I was thinking about the religious roots when I wrote previously but failed to mention it.
I think in order for even a religious ceremony to take place in modern society, there has to be a civil license in order for the civil benefits (property passing, hospital rights, child custody) to be in effect. I see the civil part and the religious part separate even as a practicing Catholic married in the Catholic Church.

[One of Two Mommies]

Simone, as a child psychologist I can assure you there is a vast amount of research that states that children of same-gender couples are not in anyway more at risk or "harmed" than children of heterosexual couples. There is a HUGE exam that all psychologists in North America have to take in order to be registered and it includes study materials and questions about this topic and it is very clear that children of gay parents are not at increased risk of negative outcomes. It did have a lot to say about children of alcoholics, abuse parents, and neglectful parents though!

[Catholic]

I've got a lot of conservative friends. Out of the ones whose opinion I respect, they are just as upset about the "Hollywood" fad of marrying and divorcing on a whim heterosexually as they are for any homosexual marriage. If you're against gay marriage but don't care what the heterosexual couples do... you're opinion is invalid in my eyes.

So.... out of my friends who have their heads screwed on straight...

They believe that marriage is a sacred thing. And being somewhat inclusive of other religions/lifestyles... people can go about getting married however they want, so long as it's heterosexually. They don't think gay people have a problem. And they aren't even necessarily all religious. But their personal beliefs are that if you're going to get married, it is to start a family. And a family at least requires the potential to have biological children. If for whatever reason that is physically impossible, then that's okay.

I kinda see their point. Even looking at your own life, the mother/father/children family unit is incredibly strong and a driving force in society. While I don't necessarily agree that homosexual couples CAN'T do the exact same thing... if you were worried about losing everything it is that a traditional family stands for, you'd probably want to protect it.

So while I'm in full support of gay marriage... I empathize with what they think. I don't know if that even explains anything at all...

[margalit]

I wish I had a rational answer, but I don't. I live in Massachusetts, the only state in the US that has legalized gay marriage. Not alliances, marriage. Women can call each other wife and wife, men can be husband and husband just as legally as husband and wife. They can raise children, they can get spousal benefits, they are in essence exactly like any other hetero married couple. It's been legal for almost 2 years now and there hasn't been ONE negative incident. More than 90 gay marriages have been performed in just my own town. And I say, good for them.

But our state legislature is having issues and they just convened to try and overrule gay marriage again this week. Didn't work, thank goodness, and it appears to be a dead issue for a while, but our state is overwhelmingly Catholic, and that does tend to affect people's outlook on gay marriage.

[margalit]

Oh, and to Linda the "Christian" who deems that any marriage out of Christianity isn't sancitifed, I remind her that Judaism was a religion way before "Christianity" and that if she indeed believes that Jewish marriages don't count, then I guess all those early Christians, who were actually Jews, didn't have legal marriages. Meaning that their children were Mumzers, bastards, and that is carried along the lineage through time. In other words, Linda, you're a Mumzer! Hmmm, maybe this whole Christians are better than everyone else 'tude might actually have some bite to it. What a Maroon.