Miss California has caused quite a stir since making her opinion clear on same sex marriage.
I can’t fault her for her opinion, despite the fact that I whole-heartedly disagree. That’s the beauty of this country: your freedom of speech is protected. I do wonder, though, how exposed she has been to the gay community. She attends a Christian college, was welcomed with open arms at her church, which praised her for “refusing to compromise her faith”, and is surrounded by members of her family who have, based on her answer, molded her opinion on same sex marriage. Has she ever worked with, attended school with, or even just talked to a gay man or woman? Isolation breeds ignorance, which then breeds fear and prejudice. I’m not saying she can’t hold her opinion; I just wonder if she’s ever considered the other side of the coin before forming it.
And while we’re on the subject of gay marriage, can everyone just stop using the “sanctity” excuse? We live in a country where you can have a drive-thru wedding in a town that practically screams cheating, gambling and prostitution. The U.S. divorce rate is 50%. And people want to protect the sanctity of marriage? Spare me.
Traditional vows go something like this…”til death do us part.”
No one dies and the rate is 50%?? Your point on sanctity is well-taken.
Well, I suppose that I must disagree with everything suggested in this one.. “Judge not lest ye be judged..” Freedom of speech allows someone to have a different opinion without the “judgement” that our society seems so ready to pass on this lady. There should be debate, not character assination on her views. There is not a right or wrong answer when it is an opinion given freely and without prejudice. The “judges” should have graded her on her poise and abilty to address the question, not whether the answer supported their views. In the balance of “class” and “character” shown by her and “the judge”, she wins hands down.
As far as marriage, there is only one answer (man + woman). Any other arrangement is a “contract”.
You’re correct. There was no need for character assassination. Like I said in the post, she is free to have her own opinion. It is, however, hard to form an educated opinion when only exposed to one side of the issue.
How can you claim that a marriage, if not between a man and a woman, is nothing but a contract? Have you not considered the prenuptial agreements that happen everyday between men and women who are too concerned with protecting their own assets to worry about how to merge into a successful and happy union? No wonder the divorce rate is so high.
And I challenge you to answer another question. What is it about a same sex marriage that is so wrong? Is it because it’s not something you’re comfortable with? If so, then that’s no reason to deny them the right to marry. The world doesn’t revolve around you, so to speak.
Is it because it’s unnatural? Why do you consider it unnatural? Because you’ve never felt that way? Again, no reason to deny it to someone else.
I have yet to hear a good reason why marriage should be kept between a man and a woman. You have no right to dictate what others do because it’s not something you are comfortable or happy with.
I’m weighing in again. It appears that there are two major issues in these arguments: free speech and ideas about marriage. One is a constitutional right and the other is individual opinion underscored by one’s beliefs, be they emotional, experiential, spiritual, biblical, or other.
Ok.. After a weekend of self debate, here are my thoughts:
At the very core of marriage, it is a verbal contract before “GOD” (doesn’t matter whether Christain, Jewish, Catholic or any religious belief that supports this vow) that a man and woman will honor and cherish..etc. It is generally a religious ceremony that celebrates a couple’s plans to wed, bear children and build a family.. Right or wrong to suggest that children are always the result, but traditionally you would support that.. It is a ceremony where the santity should be upheld, regardless of how the “mainstream” society places little value on traditions or respect in today’s melting of generations. It doesn’t matter if the divorce rate is 10% or 50%, for the marriages that are intact, the sancity of marriage is their ideal, their religious belief and their center of “family”.
As for the gay community and their needs. I do not oppose and will stand for any rights that are currently associated to a married couple to be honored by the governments (ie.. tax codes, mortgages, etc.) to be allowed to a gay couple. There can be a new ceremony developed and a vow taken in contract to an authority that they will honor each other. Call it what you will.. It should not have the religous tradition associated to so many faiths that do not recognize this way of life.
Now, in the politics of all of this, the current state of marriage is defined by each state. The drive by marriages are available in Vegas is an area that generally has little value to the morals of the country. Hence the term, Sin City.. The divorce laws are also more liberal there. That is not the case in most states.. The real question is should federal Big Brother will step in and define marriage across all states. I don’t believe that the federal govenment controll anything other than what is stated in the consitution..
However, as I get older, I find that I am in the minority and not the majority. Once again, thank goodness for the “freedom of speach” as long as Big Brother allows..
Prenuptial agreements… once again, I am not to judge why or who these work for and these are contracts outside the marriage vows..
What about things are wrong question: I am not saying that it is wrong for a gay couple to love, cherish and honor each other in any way they choose. It is wrong to ask that a majority of people that choose to vote “NO” on the issue has to have the sancity of their ceremony changed because a minority can’t find a way to debate their rights relevant to this other than to cheapen the “sancity’ of marriage.. (My thoughts…)
You do state that it is unnatual. I don’t think that it is unnatual. One can usually identify personalities that don’t fit the “MAN” of “FEMALE” mold to the tee so there are reasons to feel that it is a natual feeling between two people.
On the right to dictate, I will let you continue to debate that one with yourself. This land is govened by laws which ditate, most due to religious or traditional views at the state and local levels. It is BIG Brother that is beginning to dictate and over rule local and state regulations and if Big Brother continues to grow and regulate, you haven’t seen anything yet..