Help me understand.............

I was reading about the proposition just yesterday. Apparently it came as a bit of a shock. From what I read, the large turnout of black voters in the state resulted in the passing of #8. The editorial suggested it is a cultural difference. I find it somewhat ironic that a group who has fought long and hard for  their equality  would oppose the same right for another group.   

Frankly, as an old fart, the word "marriage" bothers me.  To me, and probably to a lot of others, the word marriage means the union of man and woman.  So, I get a bit stuck on the word.

However, do I believe that gay couples should have the same rights?  YES.  Without a doubt.  When 50% of traditional marriages are ending in divorce, why should we get on a soapbox about not so traditional commited relationships?  I don't think that you (general you) selected your sexual orientation anymore than I did, so what gives me the right to judge?  And heck, even if you DID choose this way of life (again, general you) it's still not my job to judge.

I think that many straight people find the coupling of same sex people to be "unnatural" and a bit off putting.  I personally find the deep kisses between gay couples on TV to be a bit of a"bleh" moment, but then, I don't particularly want to watch ANYONE having sex on TV.  I don't think that I'm terribly prudish, even for an old fart, but if I want to watch people having sex on the screen, I'll rent a video.  I personally don't understand homosexuality, but, then, I don't understand why a lot of folks pick and stay with the mates they choose in the "straight" world.

So, while I personally don't understand, while I personally don't want to see couples of any gender pawing one another on the streets or in public places, I don't think it's my right to make a decision for those people.  I guess that I have kind of a live and let live attitude when it comes to stuff like this, unless, someone is being harmed by what you (general) are doing.

So, now that I've made a muddle of my thoughts, why shouldn't same gender partners have the same rights as man/woman partners?  After all, marriage is such a transient state these days, with no real commitment in many cases, perhaps same gender couples, who have to fight harder to be together, stay together, etc, have a better grasp on commitment than do the traditional couples.

All that said, enlighten me please.  How can a same gender couple raise children who don't have confusion about their own sexual identity?  This is an honest question and I'm not looking to get flamed, based or anything else.  Yes, you are what you are, and that's probably pre-determined in the womb, but, how does that sexual identity become clear in a home with two moms or two dads, in what is not considered by society to be a "normal" situation? And how do those children deal with OTHER children?  Kids are so darned cruel to anyone who is in anyway different........ Help ME to understand.

In general, I don't feel that what happens between two consenting adults is one bit o my business, UNLESS someone else is being harmed by it.  And, I don't see why those same consenting adults shouldn't have the same rights, regardless of gender.  Many states consider a couple who have cohabitated for a certain number of years to be commonlaw husband and wife and I guess that same consideration should extend to ALL couples.

But, to me, MARRIAGE has a certain defination.

 I agree with Glenda on almost every point I think, except for the part about the M word.  Marriage is just a way of saying "union.

To be totally honest, *I* think of marriage as being a legally binding contract between two people, and it's there for protection.  Protection of each individual and protection of any children thay may have together. I think the institution of marriage, if it is honoured by all parties, is one that strengthens the society we live in.  I am a bit of an old fart too, in that I see marriage in the tradiational sense - you court, you get married, you are faithful to that partner and, if you both wish it, you have children with that partner.  In other words, IMO, marriage is for 2 main things:

1.  To ensure you have someone who will stand by you through thick and thin, to help and support you through life and to share everything with - posessions, problems, joys and sorrows.

2.  To have children and protect those cildren, because you have already determined and agreed that you are suited to be life partners.  I honestly believe that, as a child, to have 2 parents  who care for each other and me, and who are COMMITTED to each other AND myself, well thats the ideal scenario.  It's one most of us aim for, I think, either consciously or subconsciously.

I see no reason whatsoever why a gay couple can't "marry" for the first reason, but I do get a little bit stuck on the second point.

I am glad Glenda was brave enough to bring up the point about children that I was thinking of, but was struggling to articulate in a way that wouldn't accidentally cause offense!  I do agree with Glenda here completely. 

Nature has geared us to want to have sex because it's a way of making humans reproduce.  That's NOT to say any sex that DOESN'T result in kids is wrong or distasteful.  But a same sex couple is almost as far from procreation as it is possible to get, which is may explain in part why straight couples struggle to accept the concept, even if they cannot articulate it for themselves.

It is not, IMO, that those people are judgemental or that they are bigots.  But they genuinely struggle to fully accept the "other" way, not just because it is "different", but because it is almost diametrically so and furthermore, it goes against the grain of what their "bones" tell them is natural and normal.

I am trying VERY hard to see it from both sides here and I have to say, this is an awkward and uncomfortable fence to straddle....

I don't agree with this law passing at all.  I am not gay, but I do believe that everyone deserves the same rights as everyone else.  To get married or unite two people in love should be everyone's right.  I don't understand how the state, not religions (religions have their own specific rules), can take away that right...is this not a constitutional right?

glenmar

All that said, enlighten me please.  How can a same gender couple raise children who don't have confusion about their own sexual identity?  This is an honest question and I'm not looking to get flamed, based or anything else.  Yes, you are what you are, and that's probably pre-determined in the womb, but, how does that sexual identity become clear in a home with two moms or two dads, in what is not considered by society to be a "normal" situation? And how do those children deal with OTHER children?  Kids are so darned cruel to anyone who is in anyway different........ Help ME to understand.

In general, I don't feel that what happens between two consenting adults is one bit o my business, UNLESS someone else is being harmed by it.  And, I don't see why those same consenting adults shouldn't have the same rights, regardless of gender.  Many states consider a couple who have cohabitated for a certain number of years to be commonlaw husband and wife and I guess that same consideration should extend to ALL couples.

But, to me, MARRIAGE has a certain defination.

As far as same sex couples adopting, I say go for it.  There are far too many children out there who have to grow up in our foster care system, that is often times much much more hurtful to a child, than living with parents of the same sex.  These children probably grow up to be more understanding and more tolerant of things that are "different".  Same sex couples can educate their children in ways that other couples can not.  I just think that they can give just as full a life as anyone else could.  Also, these same sex people have friends and family who are in man-woman marriages and relationships as well as others in same sex marriages...the children will see both and know that both can have happy committed relationships.

I am not gay, but i do think it's stupid that gay couples can't get married. I could care less! It affects me in no way...

glenmar

Frankly, as an old fart, the word "marriage" bothers me.  To me, and probably to a lot of others, the word marriage means the union of man and woman.  So, I get a bit stuck on the word.

 First of all, thank you  for responding to me and sharing your thoughts.  

To you, does the word "marriage" hold a religious connotation?   I'm wondering if that is the part so many people seem to have a problem with.  So many different religions around the world teach that homosexuality is wrong and bad and unnautural.  A few quote a cryptic verse or two from the bible.  Others latch on to the idea that because pro-creation is impossible between gay couples that it is therefore wrong.   I have no beef with anybody's personal religious beliefs.  I may not agree with you but that's okay....as long as we are all respectful. 

I will readily admit that I am not a "religious" person.  I see the "same sex marriage" issue as one of legality.  Marriage is always a legal status.  Quite often marriages "officially" begin with a wedding ceremony.  Sometimes that ceremony has a religious bent, sometimes not.  I have 3 straight siblings.  2 were married in churches by a priest because that was the acceptable thing to do.  1 was married in a sculpture garden by a judge.  In the eyes of the law, they all are equally married.    

There are over 1,000 rights and protections granted by the federal government to married couples.  My partner and I decided when we bought our house that we had best do something to protect ourselves and each other.  We hired an attorney.  Spent a lot of money for a few documents that don't even come close to those 1,000 rights.  All we want is to be treated equally under the law, state and federal.

Maybe we need a different word.  

glenmar

All that said, enlighten me please.  How can a same gender couple raise children who don't have confusion about their own sexual identity?  This is an honest question and I'm not looking to get flamed, based or anything else.  Yes, you are what you are, and that's probably pre-determined in the womb, but, how does that sexual identity become clear in a home with two moms or two dads, in what is not considered by society to be a "normal" situation? And how do those children deal with OTHER children?  Kids are so darned cruel to anyone who is in anyway different........ Help ME to understand.

I am not the best one to enlighten you on this....we don't have kids (except the furry kind ).  I have never had the desire to have kids.  I like them but I have never experienced the maternal instinct so many women speak of.  I do think that kids are exposed to sooooo much that they (as they get older) come to understand there are all kinds of people in the world.  None of my gay friends have kids either....so I am limited to what my sister may have to say.  I imagine the parents have to be extra sensitive to what the kids are going through in school.  The kids need to be aware that they do live in a situation different from most.

As for how the kid's sexual identity becomes clear in a house with two moms or two dads ?  It just does.  I don't mean to sound crass, but as the kid becomes a teenager, that childs sexuality will come out all on its own.  That's what happens to gay kids in straight houses.  Why would it be any different for straight kids in gay houses ?  I knew in 2nd or 3rd grade that I was somehow different than the other girls.  It was high school before I was comfortable putting a word to that difference.  I kept that to myself though.  I was completely freaked out about my family finding out.  It wasn't until after college that I was able to really have the self confidence to come out.  Turns out I shouldn't have been worried about my family.

Marriage is a contract between two people and the state. Initially, it is the state recognizing the union of two people. Legally, it has ramifications. A surviving spouse has influence in probate. For example, Louisiana as napoleanic law. That means, regardless of stated wills, the surviving spouse automatically gets 50 percent of the estate. As a spouse, one can receive beneficiary status on insurances and investments that allow such a designation. For example, a lifetime annuity has the option of naming an irrevocable beneficiary and requires the signatures of both parties to enact, and the signatures of both parties to dissolve. As spouse, one is legally next of kin.

The notion that same gender couples should not marry is purely a religious opinion. There is nothing in nature, the law, or the Constitution (the same one that brought you Pres-elect Obama) that forbids same gender marriage. So, states like California that are banning gay marriage, even by means of amendments to state constitutions are running afoul of the Constitution and the spirit of the law and are, indeed, infusing more church into state, in spite of the explicit language in the Constitution that states that the government may not iestablish any one religion into law. Some may think me a godless american. And may find it that I will quote Bible verses. Well, I'm complicated, I guess. And blonde and really tall, too. Let me qoute again. "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's." Anyone remember who said that? Same guy who said, "Let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone."

Pres-elect Obama, in his acceptance speech said that we are all americans including gay and straight (his words), etc., etc. He is proving himself to have a set of cajones heavier than Palin or Biden, both of whom oppose gay marriage.

As for the image of same genders kissing, I don't find it offensive, at all. I do find offensive the glorified violence of UFC. And I can say this because I've had training in hand-to-hand combat and it is not, in my experience or view, for entertainment purposes. It is to save my life and see to it that I am the one still breathing at the end of it. I'm so conservative (and I've said this before if one cares to search) that I want the government out our wallets, out of our worship or lack thereof, and out of our bedrooms. Sadly, many "conservatives" are more interested in establishing their religion into law.

Now, we have an african-american president, for all the novelty that is. One day, we will have a gay president. Get used to that idea. According to some rumors, we nearly had a gay pres.

The world was going to go crazy if we had a catholic pres. Still here.

Ditto if we had an actor for pres. Still here.

We'll never have a black pres in our lifetimes. Still here.

All men (and women) are created equal. It does not say "all men are created equal except if you are gay."

So, California is doing something illegal and should be sued or pursued.

ETA:

The question of gay couples raising children. What about all the gay people that were raised by heteros, many of them church-going? A gay couple does not mean that their child will be gay. It's not a learned behavior. And a child growing up with gay parents is no more likely to be gay than anyone else. They might, just possibly, grow up to be tolerant and that's not sarcasm. Who knows how their children will turn out?

Biologically, gay is part of the natural order. Outside of our ability to have surrogate mothers and all that, same gender unions are a population control. That is, the union between two people of the same gender is not likely to result in pregnancy. And, biologically, there are similar behaviors in other parts of nature. Don't even get me started on what could best be described as God's sense of humor in regards to transexuals and true hermaphrodites. Or accidents of birth ("Hedwig and the Angry Inch.";)

Let me throw another one at you (in general). Man is a female species. All ovum are x chromosone. And the y chromosone is a slightly mutated x chromosone. And some zygotes are mutations thereof. A number of aggressive criminals are often xyy.

Can some one point out in their scriptures why that is so? And I know I will tick some people off if I point out that Adam and Eve were genetic twins.

RidgebackGermansShep

I am not gay, but i do think it's stupid that gay couples can't get married. I could care less! It affects me in no way...

But the argument given has been that if the gay people can get married......what's next ????   Whole groups of people will want to get married !  (um, the Mormans already practice polygamy don't they ?)   People will want to marry their dogs !

I find it very strange that I can get some strange man off the streets, go down to city hall and marry him.  No one will challenge that.   Yet, I can't marry the person I am in a relationship with because we both happen to be the same gender. 

 For what it's worth and for the record - I do not take religion or the Bible as a guide for how I, or anyone else should behave.  SOME of my values coincide with what the Bible orders (like for example, not stealing), but taht IS coincedence. 

There is a passage in the Bible about a man staying as a guest in someones house.  When a group of men outside ask the host to "give" them the man (for what I should hope, given the context, are "obvious" reasons) he refuses and offers them a young maiden from the house instead.  The idea that gang raping a woman is somehow "OK" in comparison to doing the same thing to a man is reprehensible to me.  BOTH are just as wrong!  Either religion has got it very wrong, or the Bible has been so skewed by bigoted men of the church and propaganda over the centuries that it no longer holds any worth or value when we are seeking something to guide us in how to live our own lives.

Ah, the story of Lot, who offers his daughters to a mob so that they will leave his houseguests alone. Later, after the burning of Sodom and Gomorrah, he gets drunk and impregnates his daughters in a cave where they are hiding out. Meanwhile, Sarah, his wife, dared to look back on the people burning and was turned into a pillar of salt. And Lot is considered the blessed one. You couldn't show this stuff on t.v., normally. But you could learn about it in Sunday School.

Or Elisha, a prophet of God who happens to be bald. Some children (in hebrew tradition, under the age of 13 or before menarche) laugh at his baldness. His precious feelings get hurt and he curses them. God sends two she-bears, who tear the 40 children to bits. Evidently, that's a better image than two people kissing.

The notion that same gender couples should not marry is purely a religious opinion.

I think this is the biggest objection people have.   Wasn't this country founded by people seeking to get away from one religion trying to tell everyone what they could and couldn't do ?

Pres-elect Obama, in his acceptance speech said that we are all americans including gay and straight (his words), etc., etc. He is proving himself to have a set of cajones heavier than Palin or Biden, both of whom oppose gay marriage.

Actually he opposes "marriage" and supports "civil unions".  This is from Obama's web site.

COMPARISON BETWEEN OBAMA AND MCCAIN
RELATIONSHIP RECOGNITION:
Obama Supports Civil Unions that Confer “the Equivalent Legal Rights as a Marriage License.” Obama said, “I am a strong supporter of civil unions…But I also believe that civil unions have to have the equivalent legal rights as a marriage license…Right now, there are about 1,200 legal rights that are available to married couples that aren't available to same‐sex couples, even if the state recognizes civil unions…And that's not fair ‐ that's discriminatory, and it's going to need to change.” 

There's that word difference again.   I don't care what it's called.  I just want to be seen as equal under the law.  Both in rights and responsibilities. 

So, California is doing something illegal and should be sued or pursued.

I'm pretty sure that process has already begun.  

Thank you Ron.  You and I feel the same way on this....you just say it much more eloquently. 

BTW, somehow I messed up the quotes and instead put in bold what I Ron2 said. 

I have known more marriages destroyed by adultery than by the fact that homosexuals exist and want to get married.  The statistics regarding people who cheat on their spouses is nothing less than sad.  Cheating is actually something that is glorified to some extent in our popular culture.  Many states have no fault divorces so if your spouse cheats on you, you cannot even use it against them during the divorce.  Adultery is addressed in the 10 Commandments, and is much more specifically addressed in the New Testament than homosexuality is, even though homosexuality was something fairly common in Rome during Christ's time from what I understand.  Yet, strangely enough, you don't hear religious groups screaming for adultery to be banned or outlawed.  I've never even heard the idea suggested.  This is where religious groups must be very careful when entering the political arena.  They risk looking like hypocrites and driving many of the people watching away from faith due to their actions.

That having been said, I do think that religious institutions should have the choice as to whether or not they preform these unions should it even be made legal.  

ETA:  Not to anyone in particular, but this seems like it could turn into a Christianity slamming thread very quickly.  This would be an unfortunate turn of events in a thread about equal rights and respect for others.........

oops!  I thought I lost the other post, so I wrote this one........sorry, I have not had any coffee yet   

ron2

The notion that same gender couples should not marry is purely a religious opinion.

Pres-elect Obama, in his acceptance speech said that we are all americans including gay and straight (his words), etc., etc. He is proving himself to have a set of cajones heavier than Palin or Biden, both of whom oppose gay marriage.

So, California is doing something illegal and should be sued or pursued.

Thank you Ron for being so eloquent.

That work "Marriage" sure stirs up a lot of religious issues.  That's the biggest hand up people seem to have.

Obama is actually opposed to same sex marriage but favors civil unions.  This is from is website.

ISSUE OBAMA MCCAIN
RELATIONSHIP RECOGNITION
Obama Supports Civil Unions that Confer “the Equivalent Legal Rights as a Marriage License.” Obama said, “I am a strong supporter of civil unions…But I also believe that civil unions have to have the equivalent legal rights as a marriage license…Right now, there are about 1,200 legal rights that are available to married couples that aren't available to same‐sex couples, even if the state recognizes civil unions…And that's not fair ‐ that's discriminatory, and it's going to need to change.”

There's that word difference again........I don't care what it's called, just so I have the same rights and protections under the law.  But on the other hand, why should it be called something different ???

 And I do think the proposition is going to be challenged.
 

sillysally

That having been said, I do think that religious institutions should have the choice as to whether or not they preform these unions should it even be made legal.  

ETA:  Not to anyone in particular, but this seems like it could turn into a Christianity slamming thread very quickly.  This would be an unfortunate turn of events in a thread about equal rights and respect for others.........

I totally agree.  The whole point of this is equal opportunity.  

The Human Rights Campaign is an organization dedicated to working for the legal rights of gay people.  The link below is a fantastic page dedicated to the same sex marriage question.  It's set up in a "FAQ" format and covers all this issues that have come up on this thread so far. This is all about legal rights and recognition.  Nothing to do with religion. 

http://www.hrc.org/issues/5517.htm