I am not going to get into a religious discussion about this subject, nor am I going to get into the political ramifications of these type of marriages.
Let me just say that on a personal note, these type of marriages rub me the wrong way.
Marriage is an institution that has withstood the ages. Just in recent times, the function of "living together" could have destroyed traditional marriage, but it didn't.
Now we have people who claim that homosexual marriage should be as legal as heterosexual marriage.
Well, I disagree, because at least in my mind, these two marriages don't equate to the same thing.
Love is love, and I am certainly not going to argue that. But to put gay marriage on the same plane as straight marriages is missing the boat.
Marriage between a man and a woman is the ultimate sacred vow, to a commitment that is much more than a business arrangement, or a blending of two people into one union. This is a commitment that could produce offspring, if the man and woman want this.
I won't argue that gay unions are loveless; they are not. But the unique aspect of straight marriages--which is the possibility of bringing other human beings into this world--makes straight marriage the only real marriage in my mind.
Yes, a man and a woman can have children without the benefit of marriage. But at least the idea behind having children in a marriage--to provide a good home, education in a loving environment--is more apt to happen when there are offspring in a marriage--where there is male and female influence--than in a non-marriage situation. I am not saying that all offspring of non-marriages are screwed up, nor am I saying that traditional marriages always produce good citizens, but I think the possibilities of having both a mother and father--and husband and wife--in the same household adds to the positive possibilities.
If gays want to be together, civil unions are the way to go. And, of course, the government cannot tell you what to do in your own home (sort of), so if gays want to consider their unions marriage, that is fine with me--but they won't be legal.
I am sick and tired of the behavior of some of those who favor gay marriage, who literally stick their opinions down our throats. One such recent incident was the beauty queen who was chastised by a judge for saying that she was not in favor of these unions. If you have an opinion for this type of union, why can't someone else have a differing opinion?
And don't get me started about Hollywood, which has made "gay" a trend. I don't think you can become gay, it is something that is within you upon birth (I am, of course, not a doctor, and that is just an opinion).
Also, does anyone pay attention to what happens when this situation comes up for a vote? Look at California, what I thought to be as liberal a state as there is--they consistently vote this legalization down.
I once had a co-worker who said to me that gay unions will "eventually" be made legal, so why not go with it now? Well, I don't jump on bandwagons, and I don't think they will ever become fully legal, although I do believe that civil unions will become increasingly strong legally as time passes when gay marriage proposals get shot down.
Another person once asked me what I would do if my kids were gay--how would I handle the situation? Well, I know that I wouldn't abandon them at all. You can still love someone even if their situation is not one that you would have hoped for. And if they wanted to get "married," let them have love in their lives--but it won't be legal.
And to equate the same-sex marriage situation with the civil rights movement of the 1960s, as some have done--please!
The bottom line is that for what it is worth, I am not for legalized gay marriage. I don't want to equate what I have--and yes, I believe in it so strongly that I did it twice--with something else entirely.
I strongly disagree with you here. You assert that the primary reason for marriage is to have and raise children in a loving two parent environment. There would then be no reason for marriage if the woman contemplating marriage is beyond childbearing years. Gay couples can adopt and also provide a stable two parent environment for raising children.
ReplyDeleteAlthough California voted down gay marriage, the national trend has been its legalization. I'd bet the next time this issue comes up on the California ballot gay marriage will be legalized.
I knew I would get a disagreement here.
ReplyDeleteI just believe that there have to be limits. Marriage as we know it should be a male/female thing, while civil unions should be used for whatever reason they are needed for.
And why is there another vote taking place in California? It was voted down there, and that should be enough. We speak through our votes, and we said what we had to say as a nation when we voted in Obama. Californians have voted against this proposal--how many times are they going to be required to cast a vote on this subject?
And yes, I never said gays can't provide love and raise a child well. I just believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. That is just my personal belief, and you and anyone else have a perfect right to feel differently on this subject. Thanks for writing.
You are welcome:).
ReplyDeleteThere's no referendum scheduled to revisit the issue of gay marriage as of yet, but I'm sure that the referendum procedure will be followed again and that there will be another vote at some point.
And what if the vote once again shows that the people of California do not want this? Will there be a push for another vote?
ReplyDeleteI believe there comes a time when the opinion of the majority must be taken for what it is. One doesn't have to agree to it. That is our process, and it has served us well for many years.
Again, thanks for writing. It is good to have a friendly discussion, even if we agree to disagree.