Hi all. I am slightly disturbed by some peoples views on Gay Marriages. I am watching Dr Phil and they are discussing it there. I am opposed to how people feel about it. I mean my MIL is Gay and I have Gay friends. What is wrong with people wanting to be taken care of like us that arent Gay....????? I need to know the answers to these questions.
I mean I see it as long as you are happy and you enjoy your partner in any type of relationship sure. I mean sure the schools will tell your children about that but I dont see what the schools have to say about marriage anyway... I know what the Bible says too. But you know what I see it again and again and again as long as you are happy....
What is the difference between a Gay couple and a Heterosexual couple except for the Gay couple being either two men or two women?????? And the other one of each...I support the Gay Marriage for those of you that are and arent.. I see it as why not let them have a wife and wife or husband and husband take care of eachother.. Sure some of them may have children. You know what if they do you explain to them that is what you want. Some people see it as its a disturbance to explain to your child.. Well you know what. There are plenty of gay people that have children and they turn out just fine..
I have explained to Kora why grandma has a partner instead of a grandpa and she understands more than you know... It upsets me with this well they need to be nongays to be married. I dont think so. I believe if you love some one and you want that right it should be there.. Its disturbing to know how most people dock this shit and say oh well they are gay they cant have the rights we have. You know what that is totally wrong.. I think if you are gay and you love that person you are with you need to be able to get married and also have the rights to have them decide what to do with you when you are sick and sign papers that us Hetero's have with our spouses...
I know I am ranting but I feel strongly on this subject and I hope you all dont critize me for this either.. There are a lot of things to be said. I mean I remember when they were trying to vote for something last year about health care something and then it was if you were a gay couple you couldnt decide what to do for your partner, you couldnt do something for there health care.. I dont get it. I just dont get it. Why cant a happy Gay couple decide what is going on for there loved one...
Anyway sorry for the rant here. But it was just something that gets me.. I support my Gay friends.. I hope you all have a wonderful weekend and talk to you all soon. N...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Agree with you 100%. I'm glad you had a good talk with Kora about it, too.
I agree with you in many respects. But many are offended by the idea of marriage so I think they should come up with a co-habitation contract that could be for a limited term. I don't think it should have anything to do with sex at all but simply people who choose to live together as family and share responsibilities and benefits. So perhaps even two sisters could move in together with their kids - one's benefits could cover the entire family and each could be responsible for the other's kids as well in an emergency.
WC thanks. It felt good just because Grandma is Gay and it helped her when she stayed with them last month really.
Jeannie well said. I never thought about that at all. Its a great idea but you know they will never pass that..
the reason for me is, that it would redefine marriage and that is one thing i am against, redefining words to fit an ideology rather than having a ideology that is in accordance to the words used by definition.
redefining words is the easiest way to lose your rights as a citizen. it is by the redefining of words that places ideology above the Constitution.
aww..
Tweets , I'm so proud of you for being so open minded ..
i'm tired of this country being forced to live by rules from someones religion..
marriage is a contract..a church wedding is an option, but the contract ( license )is mandatory
so why cant gays have the contract and then go have whatever religious rite they want ..if they want ?
In France Gay have the right to get a contract to live legally together, it's called PACS, any couple can sign the PACS contract, but Gay are not untitled to adopt children, this is against the law.
To me, I just don't care, I have no opinion, people do what they want to do, regardeless of their sexual inclination, it's none of my business, my neighbours next door, right side of the house are lesbians and I see them as two persons, not as homosexuals, I don't judge, actually I try not being judgemental in any way.
I never had to explain this to my children when they were young, even though I was still married to their father and had never been with a woman. They went to school with noticeably gay children. The first time I realized this was when my daughter came home all upset because one of her classmates was told she had to wear a skirt and blouse for a holiday choral presentation or she wouldn't be allowed to sing with the other children. I didn't understand why this was a big deal. My daughter said, "mom, she's a boy/girl." To which I replied, "what?" She then went on to explain this classmate was a boy in looks, dress, behavior and to make her wear a dress just because her body was that of a girl was embarrassing. My daughter felt so bad at how mean the school was being to this child. I then asked if there were "girl/boys" and she said yes, a couple, but they got picked on whereas the boy/girl did not. I guess even at a young age, guys have a harder time with gays than girls do.
I feel the same way, and I'm really glad that parents like you are explaining homosexuality to their kids in a positive way they can understand, instead of scaring them away from gay people. I was very upset with a friend of Richard's a couple of weeks ago, because she was sending out scare emails about the "terrible" things that would happen in California if the state continued to allow gay marriage. First of all, Canadians have no business inserting their noses into U.S. state legislation. Second, I don't think this woman is good friends with any gay people. If she was, I don't think she'd be so willing to deny them basic human rights that the rest of us enjoy, just for the sake of removing a few gay-positive books from school library shelves.
As for gay parenting, I applaud anyone who takes on the responsibility of raising children, whether their own or someone else's. I know a gay man who helped raise a straight woman's children after her husband walked out on her. So long as children are in a safe, loving environment, I don't care who is doing the parenting.
Children will not be "traumatized" or "endangered" by gay marriage. Like VV points out, kids are often far better able to understand and accept gayness than opinionated adults who have been fed anti-gay propaganda and bigotry for much of their lives. Explaining it in a way they can understand and teaching them to respect ALL people regardless of orientation, gender, race, etc., will prevent them from even being surprised by gay classmates, gay parents, etc.
The bottom line for me is that it's absolutely NONE of our business what gay people do. We do not have the right to deny them basic freedoms just because some people are uncomfortable with the idea of having to treat gays as fully human citizens. If you don't like gays, stay away from them. Don't expect the rest of us to treat them poorly to make you happier. It's not going to happen.
I like Jeannie's idea! That would be fair all the way around.
I was raised to think that homosexuality was wrong. Fortunately, I overcame my upbringing. I don't understand why people are so against LOVE. We should be spreading love, not discouraging it!
We have a couple of gay friends, too. It is, like, TOTALLY not a big deal at all to the girls. They know about gays etc...and we believe that people are either good or bad and it's not based on whether they're gay or black or purple or ugly or pretty or anything like that.
I agree that gay people ought to be able to have legal arrangements for property ownership, medical notification etc.. What pisses me off is using 'civil rights' as the vehicle by which these arrangements are won. I think the PACS idea as Kitem mentioned is a good idea, but from what I've heard there are gays out there who would not be happy at all with that arrangement.
Our gay friends are also foster parents. They have been so good for those kids and I refuse to believe that gay couples automatically should be barred from adoption or fostering for that reason alone.
The way I see it since the law states that marriage is for a man and a woman, then why not institute a law specifically for other types of unions? And I've heard the argument that there are no legal rights w/o marriage, but there are documents that are recognized by law that can be drawn up - so I do have some trouble understanding what all the fuss is about except in areas of employment law. Our civil liberties laws are clear - they just need to be enforced. But employment law has not been enforced very well for all its history whether for gays, older people, handicapped people, race, etc.....
I'm a bit old fashioned in that what two people do in the privacy of their bedroom should stay there. I don't want to know - have enough trouble keeping up with my own private love life, LOL, so I agree with Jeannie in that aspect.
So's why not push for revamping laws to also include situations such as the two sister scenario and "unions" between same sex, or friends - families mean many different things - I just don't understand fighting to be defined by wording that states one situation, when something new and less specific would work better for everyone outside of "traditional" marriage. It's a subject I've never really dialogued with someone about to help me understand why it is so important to be included within that law that defines marriage as male/female when there could be so many other options that could work.
I'm not sure it is a "religious" question at all - many men and women who opt for marriage are not going for the religious part of the ceremony, just the legal part.
I think any church has to obey the laws of the land - but why do they not have a ceremony that is purely a witness before God for two participants wanting to commit to each other exclusively when that system is a part of those two people's belief systems? Why would it HAVE to be called "marriage?"
The girl's grandma is very blessed to have such understanding and support.
One of the reasons that many gays want the marriage contract is so that they aren't thrown into a higher tax-bracket, and that's a good point, Tweety. I believe that France's solution, without the restriction on raising children, would solve a lot of problems. I also have gay friends, and don't really care what they do, as long as they do it in the privacy of their own home, just like married folks are supposed to do. I don't want to watch, and those gay parades in San Francisco where they trot around naked simulating sex acts even in front of children really piss me off! It also pisses off many homosexuals because it makes them all look bad. Decent people, either heterosexual or homosexual, simply don't act that way! At any rate, there should be a solution to this age-old problem. Homosexuals have been around forever, so it's not like they just popped up suddenly.
One of my blogging friends is gay. He's 66 years old and has a partner he's been with for many years. He says he thinks marriage was meant to be between a woman and a man, not a man and a man or a woman and a woman. I thought it was odd, since he's gay and all. But he says he would be happy with a legal contract so that their taxes weren't so much higher than those of married folks. I can see his point.
I also agree with Griper the redefination of words. It has consequences. Of course, everything does, and I'm postive that there will come a time when homosexuals are allowed to be married whether I agree with it or not. :)
Tweetey, I support you.
Also agree with you 100%. I have gay relatives also, but even if I didn't, what's the harm?
There are people who, umm partner with far more objectionable and unwilling partners.
Well said.
My whole view on gay marriages - it's none of anyone's business. I think it's more a privacy issue than anything. I don't get offended about what other adults do unless it affects me directly (like banning something I like).
Post a Comment