Posted on 11/06/2005 7:12:22 PM PST by Lorianne
Gay marriage is rapidly becoming our national tar baby – something that you cannot touch without getting tar all over you. Once you touch the tar baby, you can never quite get rid of it again.
Frankly, the gay-marriage tar baby perplexes me. I do not understand it. All I know is that I want to keep my distance from it.
The source of my confusion is this. For 18 years, I have shared my life with a member of my own sex, and I have been entirely satisfied with our domestic arrangements. Never once did it occur to me that there was something missing from our lives or that we were the oppressed victims of the heterosexual majority. Never once did I think our lives would be more complete, or more honorable, or more worthy, if only we had been able to get married.
My thought was not that marriage should be only between a man and a woman but, simply and matter-of-factly, that marriage was and had always been between a man and a woman. Marriage as an institution was theirs; it wasn't ours.
(Excerpt) Read more at dallasnews.com ...
The lesbians I know want gay marriage - want not to have to adopt each others's children, want to be next of kin without signing all sorts of documents, want the financial benefits of insurance, pensions and social security, want their relationship valued as much as a marriage between a man and a woman.
This guy gets it. First time I have ever read or heard of a homosexual who really understands.
Can't everything but the name of marriage be acheived through contracts and other documents? Which would mean that gay marriage is simply trying to equate gay sex with straight sex.
Actually, I have several gay friends who are whole-heartedly for gay marriage: they want a way of making their long-term relationships formal.
The law is applied to all equally and is NOT discriminatory.
A man, gay or straight, is free to marry any woman he can convince to do so.
It's not a sex thing.
I want rights with my same-sex life partner equal to that of a heterosexual spouse.
$24.95 office depot. Cohabitation agreement.
The homosexual woman are tired of being prohibited in most states from doing the "heather has two momies" .
Homosexualy will ALWAYS be an abnormal behavior, period.
No child should be in that 100% abnormal situation. period.
Sorry, one more thing.
But not 'gay marriage'.
And that's it right there: the gays going nuts over the marriage issue simply are doing it for MONEY and monetary benefit. They can have meaningful relationships (to them anyway) without marriage. I really don't give a crap what they do in their own homes if it doesn't hurt me or others. God will judge them someday, not me. My major problem with the idea of them getting married is the benefits they will get. I don't get sh** for benefits from the government for being single, even if I have a girlfriend and have a good relationship with her. I don't make out better on my taxes for being single, so why the hell should gays be better off than me? To put this in perspective, my half uncle is gay, he is a nice guy and never once spouted off a bunch of crap about gay marriage.
What if society simply doesn't value the two equally?
Addendum to my other post:
Let them make it formal by being married in a church. I understand that several will do it now. No monetary benefit at all, no government recognition. If gays want to be equal, the religious idea of marriage is more important than the government idea anyway. God ultimately sanctions marriage. (This doesn't mean I think God is pleased with some ministers marrying gays) I am 100 percent sure that most gays who are making a big deal out of this are doing it because of money. I stand by that.
Good point, I forgot all about that. Kids should not be in that kind of household. Period.
The key is the qualifier "without signing all sorts of documents". You can't get married "without signing all sorts of documents" either, just different documents. Your acquaintances KNOW this is true, hence the qualifier.
They want something else. They want society's total approval and support for what they choose to do, absolution if you will.
. . . and if they were truly comfortable and at-ease with what they are choosing to do, they wouldn't NEED that absolution.
Good point -- and this is why the 'rights' argument is bogus from the start. Special government treatment of married people is discriminatory to start with, if the argument is all about rights. If it's about benefits, well then we can have a debate and make a political decision on that, which we are in the process of doing.
Did you find any of this as the basis for the reasoning the author put forth in his article? I did not get any impression of either "hate" or "fear" of marriage, by the author. He seemed to simply accept that it was not a label he had to acquire for his relationship, and that alone seemed to be his argument.
Here you have a "gay" individual accepting as legitimate the claims of heterosexuals to the institution of marriage and that accpetance seems to be not enough for you. He is offering a standard of acceptance of what's yours is yours and the only thing you have to offer is that that acceptance from him seems somehow not enough. So, to him, what would you say he must accept from you instead of what he offered? That he should commit suicide because he should not exist?
In the end, it does always come down to this: wanting society's *approval.*
This can only be because of a felt lack in self-approval.
When someone, as this author, feels that he is doing right (even if he isn't), and feels satisfied with his chosen life, then it doesn't matter if anyone else on the planet "values" his relationship as much as they value someone else's.
Why is so much energy spent on caring about what other people think of something you (at least say you) think is morally right and positive for you?
Apart from what the homosexualists want to accomplish with their agenda (moral nihlism), on the individual level, it seems completely immature--almost to the point of arrested adolescence--to be going through life and, at mid-age, still be worrying about whether the neighbors find your relationship as "valuable" as theirs.
I think you have here identified the real crux of the matter: homosexuals want not only to be free to pursue their lifestyle, but they want the APPROVAL of the rest of society.
Getting the state to "recognize" and "regularize" their relationships goes a lont way toward that goal.
The truly sad thing, however, is that they don't understand that the vast majority of society, while it's pretty much willing to leave homosexuals alone, continues to think, and will probably always continue to think, their behavior is abnormal and degenerate. If someone has a homosexual relative or friend, one is likely to want that person to be accepted, but deep down, they know the behavior is degenerate.
There's a simple test: can you, as a parent, truly say that you would have no negative reaction whatsoever -- I don't mean outwardly, I mean inside -- if your child waltzed in and announced they were homosexual? I don't know ANYONE who isn't a homosexual who truly could say that. Everyone I know who's got homosexual children, some of whom are big crusaders for homosexual rights now, had a significant inner struggle with it emotionally. It's that emotional reaction, the gut instinct that it's abnormal, that all the legal recognition in the world won't change.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.