an unexpected opinion - why i don’t believe in gay marriage
so this blog will inevitably get me into trouble, i'm sure. some people really don't know how to handle opposing or different viewpoints.
but anyways, i was talking about this yesterday, and the other day, and a lot. i love talking about politics, and this inevitably comes up as its one of the most debated topics among american politics today.
but i have kind of an unexpected viewpoint. an unusual one, not because of the fact that i don't believe in gay marriage, but for the simple fact that i myself am gay. that sort of makes it unusual, wouldn't you say?
anyways. the reasoning behind this blog is that a few days ago this topic was being discussed at work, and i was not asked my opinion. the person who was leading the conversation went around in the circle of people at the table and asked their opinion, but i was inexplicably skipped. when i asked why i was skipped, i received the response "well... your gay... your answer was obvious."
i laid out my opinions on the matter, and the people i was talking to were shocked, not only because i do not in fact believe in gay marriage, but to the simple fact that i can actually defend my opinion better than most straight people that believe that.
marriage was created thousands of years ago by emerging religions. the ancient babylonians engaged in basically the same "marriage" practices that occurred. it was considered a considerably religious undertaking. the people were bound to a set of rules that they were to abide by - no adultery, no beating your wife, blah blah - but it was always considered a union between a man and a woman and their deity or god.
now, marriage was obviously absorbed and changed to accommodate different cultures and religions, but marriage was always between a man and a woman. even the ancient greeks, who were very tolerant and actually promoted homosexuality, didn't offer marriages between men and women, because it was still not accommodated by their religion.
marriage as it is today in this country is adapted from, without a doubt, the christian version of marriage. we all know that the bible universally disowns and debases homosexuality of any manner, and as such it is explicitly stated that marriage is between a man and a woman more than a couple times in the bible.
my qualm is this. why should gay people get married when the basis of the union that they are undertaking is intolerant and against that lifestyle? it just seems kind of demeaning to undertake a ceremony that was created and is done by people that openly disagree with your life choices. i feel that homosexuals want to be married more to be accepted than they actually believe in the idea of marriage itself - look at all the eloping that is going on due to gay marriage being legalized in california. if you want to be with someone, then you should be with them. labels shouldn't matter.
but i think a universal label is okay. i'm very for civil unions and domestic partnerships. i just don't think the use of the word marriage is right. but, on the flip side, i don't think anyone in america should be "married" as they are today. i think that everyone should have civil unions or domestic partnerships, whatever we want to call it, and that if you want to be married, you go to a church and do it the right way, the way it was created.
marriage has been corrupted and twisted in this country for a long time. when 70 percent of marriages end in divorce, you know that something is wrong with the picture. till death do us part is dead, to be frank, and i think that is hypocritical as well. i am personally not christian, and i definitely wouldn't think to get married just because it's what everyone else is doing. i just personally think it's wrong.
so, in closing, i have received much musings over this topic, so i thought i would share it with all of you. i won't change my mind, (probably), but i welcome you to share your thoughts and opinions on my viewpoint. i enjoy talking about it, because discourse breeds interest, and i think this is a topic everyone should have an interest in.
Marriage is way back in the day was really about perpetuation of societies. Religion always seems to get "dragged" into marriage. Marriage is not about religion and should never be about religion. Marriage is a civil contract between two people. Being gay thousands of years ago is not the same is being gay today. Marriage for heteros today isn't the same. Arranged marriages don't happen as much, dowry's are not given to a brides family and polygamy isn't as prevelant in certain societies like it was years ago.
Why do we want to get married? So we can have the same rights as everyone else. It's not about being like the heteros. My partner should have access to my social security benefits, death benefits, and pensions. A lot of gay people go spend lots of money in attorney fees to ensure their partner gets what is rightfully theirs. In some cases that hasn't been fullproof.
Calling it domestic partner or civil union doesnt make it equal to marriage. Seperate is not equal. Marriage should be extended to everyone gay or straight and if you want a religious aspect to the wedding then you should be free to do so. You have the right not to get married as well. Lots of hetero people don't get married and live together forever. They still get rights we don't and some states have common law marriage laws.
You seem very young by looking at your photo. Maybe when you get older and realize what is at stake you may change your mind or you may just hire an attorney to get your affairs in order. Whatever the choice is, the real beauty is we live in a country with choices.
Just a quick response (part 1)
My spouse just wed in San Francisco on June 27, and here is one very good reason why we should be able to. 1 week after we returned Keith had to have gall bladder surgery! Here in Nevada I have NO legal power to make any medical decision had something gone wrong unless we both had medical power of attorney signed in advance or an advanced medical directive as they call it filled out when he was admitted. Straight couples in Nevada noe the US DON"T need this if they are married although they can still fill one out it is not questioned if they don't. We were questioned.
That would not now be the case if we lived in CA. what's wrong with this picture? Forget the history of the institution forget the hetro stereo typing of the ritual think carefully about the legal ramifications.Iit is the last leg of those who oppose of our existence and DO NOT want us to be ratified as fellow Americans! Same with federal taxes and ALL the legal benefits! Remember the slogan "No taxation without representation".
The loop hole of calling it civil unions, or what ever still prevents us from being EQUAL under the law! It must stop and we must raise ourselves to and above the level the rest of the country who belittle the institution themselves on TV and in other aspects! Lets just see if the GLBT community has the same rate of divorce, I would bet we would raise the bar by having fewer! Most of the people we met during the Pride weekend in SF had been together for many more years than we have(6years)! Survey after survey around the world have shown that marriage equality in the right thing!
Lastly, even if you do oppose "SAME GENDER" marriage PLEASE don't ruin the opportunity for others who want to make their lives better everyone will benefit from this in some way in the future!
By the way I would also like to start a movement to correct the term used for our marrying to "SAME GENDER" since this not about our "SEX" but is about what gender is saying "I DO" to each other!
Yours for a song and with PRIDE!
EtheDJ & KtheEditor
If you pay attention, stephen says that "marriage" should also cease to exist as a legal union for straight people too. Marriage would only be a religious sacrament with no legal aspect. And then civil unions would be available as a legally binding partnership contract between any two individuals, gay or straight, therefor using the SAME TERM and giving the SAME RIGHTS to ANY couple who has a civil union.
So... if you carefully re-read what he had to say, he did not claim any ridiculous seperate-but-equal crap, because we all know seperate is rarely equal. I hope my restating and elaborating helps clear the issue up a bit. And my (hopefully correct) expanation of what he meant was really easy for me to write, because it happens to be exactly what I believe also!
to the last poster. i didn't really think my opinion was that hard to comprehend. i want straight people to have civil unions just like gay people.
i'm frankly dissapointed that nobody took the time to actually read my blog before blasting it.
:/
Part 2:
What's in a word or term? Allot in this country! In this country there are states that have common law marriages, civil unions, and other forms of legal contracts and agreements for straight couples already. Straight couples CAN and DO have civil unions all the time! Several did the same day we did in S.F. Church weddings are becoming less common these days but are still just a romantic notion as the wedding is still registered in the state it took place in as a LEGAL contract. My first gay wedding was in 1984 at the Metropolitian Community Church in S.F. We STILL had to file tons of legal forms to protect us from families, debtors, and protect our estates legal rights as if we were a business! These legalities are pretty automatic for straight couples who have a "marriage" according to federal law and now DOMA.
Here are the true differences. The certificate of vital records for the state of CA. uses the word marriage on it's certificates. Even if straight couples have a civil union at a city hall or court and not in a church. And/or in some states if straight couples just live together for a number of years then get divorced the courts in those states will by law recognize there "marriage" go figure! Imagine if they did that for same gender couples!! But they don't.
As long as this country splits hairs on what is recognizes as a legal binding relationship between 2 people then it is what we must strive for no matter what you call it. If the federal government would add SAME GENDER into the constitution in general this would not be an issue at all!
To use a popular phrase this election year you can out lipstick on...... oh you know! LOL! You can call marriage a civil union or what ever you want but as long as same gender couples are not treated as equals under FEDERAL LAW (some states do allow some of the following) i.e.: taking the other persons last name, filing joint federal taxes which is a big one for me, taking out joint home loans, joint checking accounts, both people being listed as parents of an adopted child, having full legal health care benefits, legal power of attorney, insurance rights and many others rights that are given with a straight "marriage" or even a civil union certificate!
That's all. I really don't care what it's called I just want my and my partners relationship given EQUAL constitutional rights in ALL 50 states the same as a straight couple!
We can change the word we use for death to deceased is it not still death! Think about it.
EtheDJ & KtheEditor