If you're in Canada it could be "husband and wife" or "husband and husband" or "wife and wife." The marriage law was hotly debated in the country, especially in my home province of Alberta. I was never opposed to the law, so felt enormous amounts of frustration by the emails sent to me to "do my Christian duty and protest this law that would be our country's moral downfall." The people sending me these emails assumed that because I was affiliated with the same religion, I also shared their same feelings on homosexuality and gay marriage. (As an aside... people really need to know their audience before sending out mass emails). To say that gay marriage would bring about our moral decay is neglecting the decades of heterosexuals doing just fine in that area... affairs, dispensible marriages... is this any better? Then there were others who believed that homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals, but that it should be called something other than marriage, like a "civil union." It's just arguing semantics, isn't it?
On July 20th the bill became law, and there's not much that can be done by those that oppose it. A poll was printed in my local paper today. The poll showed that 56% of Albertan's were still opposed to gay marriage. What irked me about this article was an idiot MLA, Paul Hinman, who said that "Alberta's redneck roots have led to an unwavering opinion on gay marriage... We are considered rednecks and that means we're independent and we don't buy into the rhetoric." Independent, really? I usually think of rednecks according to this definition "A white person regarded as having a provincial, conservative, often bigoted attitude."
Is this how Mr. Hinman wants Albertan's to be perceived? I suppose so, seeing how he portrays himself as a classic redneck. Thank goodness there are still 44% of us that aren't in line with Mr. Hinman. The rest of them would do well to take a line from Ben Folds and find those hundred ways to cover their redneck pasts.
Christmas Festivities
8 years ago
11 comments:
This is something that I struggle with, and haven't quite found the answer. However, isn't treating them as humans also affording them the same rights as heterosexuals? Before the law in Canada, heterosexual common-law relationships were given the same tax benefits as those that were married. It seemed hypocritical to me that those same rights weren't afforded to homosexual couples.
I suppose this is the bottom line... I don't believe that allowing gay union/marriages/whatever will increase the number of homosexuals... nor do I believe that allowing it will be our moral downfall.
What I do believe is that we would all do better to be more tolerant (and compassionate as you've stated) to everyone in this world... I know for sure that is what Christ would want us to do. The other issue about where you draw the line... well that will likely take me a lifetime to figure out!
well said eyun... marriages shouldn't be about a statement of any kind. my sister said two heterosexual men were going to wed to reap the financial benefits of marriage.
tod... there were plenty of arguments up here about this opening the door for child pornography or plural marriages. however, i think that is a stretch (perhaps not plural marriages, but the child bit). first of all, homosexual unions are with two consenting adults. children do not fit that category. i would be highly surprised to see anything of that nature supported. pedophilia/child pornography is not something supported by a very large majority of people... including those left and right.
bottom line is that i feel that the far right movement has taken the gay issue as the "poster child", if you will, for our societies moral degradation... something that i feel is unfair... but perhaps they see it as an easy target
True true. It is being treated as the "end all" of humanity, which is ridiculous of course. War, famine, starvation, dishonesty, corporate control, destruction of the environment, dischord, power, gain, it all fits in to the grand picture.
I'm just concerned with the sub-culture of the Church, anyone read Sunstone or Dialogue before? Some of the things people are arguing in there are ridiculous (including homosexuality is just fine with God), redefining commandments is not in the general handbook for members, I'm sorry. It seems so many want one foot in Babylon and one foot in Zion. And I don't wish to accuse anyone specifically... This is what has been said, that the world would fall around us and we're not supposed to make allowances in conduct just to appease the greater masses.
Sorry to get all serious-like, I had too many bowls of Frosted Flakes this morning, I really do enjoy your comments aisy...
Oh yeah, I'm all about marching for midget wedding rights.
feel free to get all serious like tod... posting my wild opinions on my blog makes me fair game. all your responses have been courteous disagreements... which i appreciate
eyun, are you saying tall people can't go to little people weddings? that's like saying heterosexuals can't be invited to homosexual weddings... that screams of discrimination!
i came across your site randomly, but i like seeing other people's points of veiws, and using them to form my own.
I personally think that there shouldn't be a big deal over this. why shouldn't gay people be allowed to get married? i think that we should leave the judgement to God (yes, i'm catholic), and if he thinks its wrong for them to marry, he'll take care of it. Its not for us to decide, and not for us to judge whats right or wrong.
(just my opionion.)
when exactly was this crap thrown at you? When you entered this site by your own free will? When you continued to read it in its entirety?
That is like eating fast food everyday and blaming McDonalds for getting fat.
Amen.
The thing that bug me is that only about 5% of the world population is gay? (I may be off on that). And of that 5% how many are interested in a monogamous legal union? Lets be generous and say 25% of them do. So that is (lemme pull up my calc widget (GO OSX Tiger!))1.25% of the population that this is going to directly impact and yet it gets so much attention that it is one of the main issues over which our government is elected. I mean this is like that rock thats in your shoe that when you pull it out is way smaller than you pictured it, wait i dotn know if that is what Im trying to say. But people are gonna do what they are gonna do whether its legal or not, you just gotta make sure your doing what you feel/know is right.
But what if a midget wants to marry a big person?
Aisy, agree with you completely - if I receive one more of those emails inviting me to unite against gay marriage I will scream!!! I have even lost friends over it, as they have been "shocked" and "offended" by my oppinions and responses. Please!! I am sick of hearing people sing "love one another" and the like, but feeling completely justified in excluding gays from that because they are "not part of God's plan". Barf!!
Todd, what do you mean when you write that "homosexuality [is in] opposition to nature"? If you mean that homosexual conduct cannot occur, then you are clearly mistaken. If you mean homosexual conduct is statistically infrequent, your claim is merely descriptive and one can draw no prescriptive conclusion from it. If you mean that homosexual conduct is not in accord with dominant biological function, then those who eat purely for pleasure merit your moral condemnation. If by "unnatural" you mean something like "contrary to my religion’s interpretation of God’s commands," that is what you should say.
Perhaps you could also explain who designed marriage "for the upbringing of children and the defense of that family". Bearing and raising children has never been a precondition for the capacity to marry. Many married couples cannot or choose not to have children. Even if raising children were a precondition, homosexuals are just as capable (or incapable) of raising children as anyone else. There are no developmental differences between children raised by homosexual parents and children raised by heterosexual parents (see American Psychological Association research); and there is no evidence to suggest that homosexual parents are any more likely than heterosexual parents to abuse children (also see American Psychological Association research). Homosexuals can be loving brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, friends and neighbours, and there is no reason why they can’t be loving parents too.
As for motives, the Canadian Constitution provides that every individual is equal before and under the law. That's why the Canadian Government is striving to treat homosexuals with dignity and respect.
One more thing: your analogy between child pornography and homosexual marriage fails utterly. A sexual relationship between two adult persons of the same sex can be consensual, whereas the relationship between a child and a pornographer cannot. The prohibition on child pornography has nothing to do with whether men or women like to see naked kids; it has to do with whether a child can consent.
fezzywigger, that's how I feel about Mormons! Active Mormons constitute about 0.05% of the world's population, yet they're constantly bitching and complaining about getting no respect. They're exactly like the rock in your shoe that you pull out and realize is way smaller than you pictured it to be. Of course, we all know that small rocks in your shoe can be incredibly irritating. Just like Mormons! Wow, great analogy!
bread... i believe there are some of us active mormon's that are not constantly bitchin'... at least i hope i fall in to that category. So, let's be fair and say .03% of them complain ;)
Speaking of fruitbats, not only do they engage in homosexual copulation, they're also a really good band that you folks should check out.
Post a Comment