ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

How My Same-Sex Marriage Will Affect Yours

Updated on May 6, 2016

America Joins In!

UPDATE: June 26, 2015 - Congratulations to the United States of America, and SCOTUS, for affirming Marriage Equality and ruling that it is a constitutional right of all Americans to be able to marry who they love. Even this little New Zealander (a land with equality for just over 2.5yrs) is excited by this and very happy for you!


But on to more pressing things - How exactly will my Marriage Affect Yours if you aren't 'for' equality? I shall endeavour to explain the most common arguments around this below...continue!

Interesting site with both pro and con arguments
Interesting site with both pro and con arguments | Source

How Ever Will You Cope? Oh, the Sanctity!

This hub stems from comments, questions, answers, threads, hubs, Facebook groups, and general confusion over exactly what the big deal is.

Over and over again I hear that somehow the legalization of Same-Sex Marriage (or Marriage Equality) will destroy the Sanctity of Marriage. Yet, how this is possible is never completely explain. Furthermore, I thought that the Sanctity of Marriage was destroyed by Divorce - something currently only open to Heterosexual Couples.

Perhaps, because it was seen as a contract under God. However the traditional Church wedding is now being overlooked by many a straight couple in favour of the 'location wedding." So, if one must be married in a church to have a marriage covenant under God, then there are some straight couples 'destroying the sanctity" again. Though, if you think about it - God is supposed to be omnipresent, etc etc - so why a Church? He's everywhere, at every ceremony - therefore, same sex marriages are contracts made under God.

Bearing Children?

Perhaps it is because we apparently cannot bear children. In a world straining under the weight of over-population, struggling with drought, famine, poverty, illness borne of poverty/famine/drought - you'd assume that we had enough people already, and the 'be fruitful and multiply" is a little overdone, and procreation would be the least of our worries.

Furthermore, what about those infertile straight couples? Shall we prevent them from marrying one another? Because clearly they are only have sex for the pleasure of it, not for procreation.

A little research, and you'll find there are plenty of same sex relationships with children, including my own. It's not as hard as it sounds. Just because we are gay does not mean we don't have the correct equipment to do anything about it. Many a gay woman has slept with a gay man to make babies. Many a gay man has slept with a gay woman in order to be a father. Surrogates are willing, wonderful people who assist with making a family, as are donors.

So, the Sanctity and Baby-Making Abilities of a Marriage are not lost within a same sex marriage. Tick that one off the list.

Source

What About My Marriage?

Same Sex Marriage will not affect your marriage in anyway. Nor will it affect your lifestyle, etc etc. Why? Let's look at what it does and doesn't do:

Does it stop you from marrying? No. Will it end your marriage? Unless your spouse is a well-closeted homosexual and married because it was the DONE thing back in the day - No, it won't end your marriage. Will it taint your family? No. Will it take away any of your rights? No. Does it enforce what you should teach your children? No. Does it stop you from having children? No. Will it cost you anything? No, unless you are invited to the wedding, then a gift may be nice!.

You see, I have no say in who you marry, the way you raise your children, the way you live your life. If you want to marry the drop kick boyfriend your parents hated and who beats you, over the Bank Manager - I'm not going to stop you. If you want to marry a person who is over 10yrs your senior/junior - not going to stop you. If you want to marry outside your race or religion - nope, not stopping you there either.

If you want to raise your children in a different way to the way I raise mine - that's fine, and awesome as difference makes the world a better place. If you wish to teach them hatred, I cannot stop you. If you wish to teach them to love thy neighbour (except of course the gay ones down the road), then that's fine too. I'd be happier if you taught them to love thy neighbour regardless of who they are, but hey - I'm not going to tell you how to raise your children.

If you want to live an opulent lifestyle whilst thousands of same-sex attracted teens are homeless (perhaps your own, if you would kick them out), that's not up to me to judge. If you wish to volunteer your time at a homeless shelter, that's dandy also.

So, how again is my love for my same-sex wife (partner of 10 years, and loving Mama to our child) and desire to be joined in matrimony going to affect you and your marriage?? I can't hear you. How does my desire to have the same rights afforded to me and my family infringe on yours?

WHAT!!!??? You mean it doesn't?

EXACTLY.

My being married to my spouse of 10 years changes NOTHING in your marriage, family, or life. NOR will it ever. I will never have a say in who, when or how you marry, raise your children, live your life.

Why then, should you have a say is all of that, for me, solely because I am gay?

UPDATE: As of June 4 (US) (June 5 NZ) the Comments have been reopened - please do not reply to ibradmasters or RealityTalks comments - ib has been banned from Hubpages and Reality has left - you can check their profiles for confirmation. However, should derogatory or personal comments start up again - I will close them.

Comments

Submit a Comment

  • peachpurple profile image

    peachy 2 years ago from Home Sweet Home

    everyone has their own decision to decide same or different sex marraige, no comments

  • William Dugat profile image

    William Dugat 2 years ago from Lufkin, Texas

    I am not saying I know more than the supreme court justices, but I do think they are idiots. Anthony Kennedy is one of the ones I'm talking about. Have you heard of "unconscious racism?" If not please go look it up. Type "Anthony Kennedy unconscious racism" into google and read about it. That man has no brain, or if he does, its pretty corrupted.

  • jlpark profile image
    Author

    Jacqui 2 years ago from New Zealand

    And I was saying - It's happening, to us. Not to you, but to us. And by us asking for protection from it, by adding sexual orientation and gender expression/identity to non-discrimination laws - it protects all of us - you and I. BUT, those who often say it's not happening and "Heck, it's all equal, you has the same rights I does!" are usually those who aren't affected by the inequalities within those "rights" - sure, it's legal, but it's not you getting fired, so you aren't bothered too much by it. Where as it would be best for everyone if you got on board with the adding of things to discrimination laws - where you will be protected as well.

    Example - we have free (yes free) teritary level public health care, and highly subsisdised primary health care, in New Zealand - so all people from any race, background, religion, sexual orienation etc can access healthcare at little or no cost. YET, we still have inequalities in our health statistics - for our indigenous people, pacific peoples, and asian peoples in particular. Now, in your model, it should be "well, they have the same right to access as well as I do, so if they don't too bad" - but instead, we work on what is causing the inequalities, to try and help change the way in which they may access health care.

    Yes you would still have that right - BUT would it be FAIR? Would you merely sit back and say "Well, thats just the way it is.". Equal but different ISN'T EQUAL. If it was happening to you, I can't see you just sitting back and saying "Oh well."

    The Justices of the Supreme Court - with all their years of legal and constitution experience - ruled that the Equal Protection under the law meant that same-sex marriage bans were unconstitutional. So are you telling me you know more about the constitution that the elected officials of SCOTUS?

    I get what you are saying - but it's an invalid argument when it's been ruled using the EXACT SAME Amendment that gay marriage bans were unconstitutional. So, maybe it's that you don't get what is being said.

    These are all rhetorical questions by the way, you don't have to come back and answer if you don't want to continue to argue (unfollowing a hub does seem to help this.....you'll stop getting updates.) I don't want to argue, but then again, this is my hub - I don't have a choice to see your comments, you have all the choice in the world to comment, and/or unfollow.

  • William Dugat profile image

    William Dugat 2 years ago from Lufkin, Texas

    I did not say it has happened, I said it is LEGAL. It is legal for someone to be fired for being heterosexual as well as homosexual. I never said it has happened, only that it is not outlawed. It's not a matter of point of view. If I was denied marriage to a woman because I did not have the marriage right to marry a person of the opposite sex, it would still be equal protection under the law, because in the scenario you create, I still have the right (just as everyone else does) to marry a person of the same sex. Equal protection was present, and the thing you are noting is not the same. Your definition of equality here is everyone being allowed to marry whoever they want. The principle used to pass the law was EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW, and this was already present. Do you get what I am saying?

    I agree that we should end it, so it may be best you do not reply with an argument.

  • jlpark profile image
    Author

    Jacqui 2 years ago from New Zealand

    William - if it was the other way around, and you were the one who wasn't able to marry the person you loved because they were the opposite gender, and the law only allowed for everyone to marry someone of the same gender - would you consider it equal?

    Of course you consider it equal when it doesn't restrict you or deny you anything. Because it's providing you with the rights and benefits being denied to others, therefore you can't see that it's not equal. Much like the white person couldn't see what the problem was when black people had to have their own water fountains - when it's not affecting you.

    Fired for being heterosexual? Can you provide me with any examples of this actually happening? Even in LGBT employers, they're not likely to fire someone based SOLELY on their heterosxeuality (those who work actively to help with LGBT matters but are straight are called Allies, and we quite like having them around.) - if you were straight, and preaching your religion and telling your work colleagues how sinful they are, and that their sexual orientation is wrong - then you could be asked to leave as you don't fit the team.

    I am currently waiting for a job interview. I cannot, and do not, mention my partner in any of these interviews, because whilst in New Zealand it is illegal to be not given a job solely on sexual orientation - they can always find something else to say as to why you didn't get it. (HOWEVER, the moment I start the job, I am open about who I am ). You, on the other hand, could quite happily talk about your straight partner should the topic arise.

    You obviously don't wish to learn, or listen. I'm not asking you to change your mind, but you're repeating the same argument when it's been discussed within an inch of it's life. Sure, I'm not going to change my mind either, but I've been willing to listen and have learnt a few things. But I do not wish to re-hash the same stuff over and over again.

    May I suggest we end it here?

  • William Dugat profile image

    William Dugat 2 years ago from Lufkin, Texas

    Why is it you keep speaking of "equal rights?" Equal protection under the law was ALWAYS PRESENT! The LGBs were asking for new rights, not equality. The textbook definition of equal protection under the law is all citizens having the same rights. Everyone was allowed marriage of someone of the opposite sex. EVERYONE. Equal protection was present, but the LGBs weren't happy. As for "discrimination," it is not outlawed for many many things. Sure, it does not happen as much for Christians or for heterosexuals, but it is NOT outlawed. If I was fired for being heterosexual, I might get mad, sure, but I still think it should be a right of the people to choose who works in THEIR privately owned companies.

  • jlpark profile image
    Author

    Jacqui 2 years ago from New Zealand

    William - Actually, she isn't trashing your religion. She is having an opinion, much like you are. She just happens to think certain things about your religion. Very much like you think certain things about LGBT people, or Atheists. You may not feel as though it is judging, but it is. As it's your interpretation of you think your Bible says.

    Show me where it's being trashed? Show me where she has said something that is blatantly untrue as evidenced by the behaviour of some of the most vocal Christians/Muslims etc - those out there using their religion of love and peace to preach hatred toward others - first Black people, now LGBT, and other religions - WBC, ISIS, Pat Robertson, Newt Gingrich. You yourself - you state you aren't judging - it's just wrong - and therefore I should be denied equal human rights, because you think my sexual orientation (which I cannot change, and you have just proven that) is wrong.

    You state you would 'choose no orientation' over homosexuality - you see, you can choose to NOT have sex, but you will still be attracted to women, you will still be heterosexual - whether you are having sexual relationships with them or not (by choice).

    Human morals of the past - Provide an example of where it's stated as wrong? But also remember, that in the past it was moral (and Biblically condoned even) to have slaves, to beat a woman. Now, look at human morals without religion - morals of atheists - there are atheists who disagree with homosexuality, but you'll find that most atheists morals include "Doing no harm" - as long as no harm is being done to anyone, and no law is being broken. Homosexual relationships between consenting adults are harming no one.

    The spread of your religion - I can understand why you'd want to, and why you'd think you are doing good. I'm not stopping you from doing that. But when you says the spread of your religion does not affect me - it DOES, and I can't believe you think it doesn't - your religion, and the spread of it, is the reason that it has taken until 2015 to have equal marriage rights, the reason that it was once illegal to be a homosexual - Alan Turing without whom we would not be conversing in such a way over the internet was arrested and chemical castrated because he was a homosexual. He has only just recently been royally pardoned of something that should never have been a crime, YEARS after his death. Religion affects my life all the time - sure you have something good, you want to share it, you want people to appreciate God and Jesus, but you (again, you being anyone) try to stop other people whom you don't like something about them from having equal rights because of your religious beliefs.

    Now, I have no issue with religion in general. I have no issue with you sharing your story, I have no issue with you enjoying your faith. I have an issue when your religion affects my rights and the rights of others, but that speaking against that is seen as prejudice or discrimination...when it's not.

    I've not gotten all "you're judging me, and I don't like it!" about it - I've let you say your piece, knowing where it comes from. The MOMENT it gets questioned a little more bluntly than I may have done, you get upset about it being trashed. Can you not see that it's eerily similar to you telling me "I'm not judging, but...." or "I'm trying to help..."

    Actually, the rainbow colours have a story all of their own in relation to LGBT - I may write a hub on it but I think someone else has.

    I do find it funny how you are happy to claim the symbol from LGBTs, to represent MASS genocide as a GOOD thing.

    This page is NOT about your religion - you have proven my marriage doesn't affect yours, and that you cannot change your sexual orientation (so why do you think I can???) - no further comments will be accepted from you discussing religion - as well as Austin. I DO NOT Want to have to shut the comments again, but I will.

  • William Dugat profile image

    William Dugat 2 years ago from Lufkin, Texas

    If the correct way by God's word was to be gay, and heterosexuality was a sin, I would gladly drop any orientation. I would go without any orientation if I had to it would not bother me. I can live without human companionship by marital or sexual means. Austinstar- I do not appreciate you trashing my religion. You have your right to your opinion, but you cannot publicly trash my religion. You tell me not to judge. You tell me not to condemn. Do you not realize that you are doing to me what you say you do not want done to you? I have not judged anyone. I have voiced my opinion in ONLY a civil manner. I have not said you should die for being gay or go to hell for being gay. I have not judged, only stated that it is wrong. It's like telling a murderer that killing is wrong. Since you seem to have a problem with any type of religious approach, lets drop that perspective. Allow us to take a look at morals. What do human morals of the past say about homosexuality? It's wrong. Of course there are those who violate this morale, just as there are murderers and liars in the world. At this perspective, religion is not a factor, and maybe a stubborn atheist as yourself can understand.

    Just by the way, the spread of Christianity is supposed to be a good thing. You, as nonbelievers, don't understand WHY I spread my religion. You may be too stubborn to ever believe it, but Jesus Christ descended from heaven and lived a sinless life. He was beaten and ridiculed and then nailed to a Roman cross for OUR sin, so that we wouldn't have to go to hell. Look at it in my perspective. Act as though all the things I said there are true, as I believe they are, and millions of others believe they are. Can you see why I spread my religion? I spread it not for power, not for control, not for anything like that, but to try to let people know what Jesus did for them, so that they might be saved. I am only trying to keep people out of hell. That's all. Now do you understand why I try to "spread" this? I am trying to help. Even if you don't believe this, the spread of my religion does not affect you does it?

    One more thing. the symbol for LGB rights is a rainbow, correct? The rainbow was created by God, as a symbol for the promise that he would never flood the Earth again. The rainbow is a biblical symbol, not a representation for sin.

  • Austinstar profile image

    Lela 2 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

    No problem. I am incapable of being offended by anyone. I'm not offended at all by your marriage, or your religion, or your life. You are way nicer than I am, and that's OK.

  • jlpark profile image
    Author

    Jacqui 2 years ago from New Zealand

    Austin - when I say "you" - I usually mean "anyone" - so I wasn't suggesting you change the way you live to fit with my prescription of how it should be, just saying that I live it this particular way.

    My final paragraph was just that "your walk with or without God/s is personal - lets keep it that way"

    I understand what many religions teach, but MOST people are respectful enough to realise that their journey is a personal one, not a public one, nor a global one, and certainly not one that everyone should be forced to walk in the same way they do, nor should those who don't be judged by them on it (judged by their God, but certainly not them personally). MOST, not all. Unfortunately, the minority seem to be the most vocal about it.

    I'm not saying you have to be nice, though I would like to try to be. You can approach them how you like. I just find for me niceness seems to get me further but it may not be the same for you. (I'm not saying you're mean either).

    But I agree with your last statement - there is too much hatred in the name of religion for the world to truely be at peace.

    Thanks for your comments - but I will need to stop discussing religion unless it relates directly to the hub (trying to be fair between you and William - I've told him similar).

  • Austinstar profile image

    Lela 2 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

    Religion teaches people to judge, and judge very harshly. After all, if you disobey your church's idea of "god's law", you are going to burn in eternal hell. That is the harsh, heinous sentence they impose on people who don't fit their idea of a "good" Christian. It works the same for other religions, but Christians and Muslims seem to be the most vocal about judging others.

    I just can't be nice to these people. They are the equivalent of cops that shoot and kill people because they "think" you have a weapon. It's just as tragic and is the direct cause of homicides, suicides, genocides, and jihads/fatwas/suicide bombers.

    Until we eliminate all this judgmental hatred from religion, our world will never know peace.

  • jlpark profile image
    Author

    Jacqui 2 years ago from New Zealand

    Austin - thanks for your comment. I guess I may be trying to get my point across with a little bit too much gentleness. I believe I have asked William to choose to be gay more than once, and he's quietly ignored or avoided the request. Not that I'm saying you're not being nice - but just a wee bit blunter than I had tried. Lets see if we can get an answer.

    I did notice that he skipped over why I should be held to Levitical standards but he is not since Jesus' death. And skipped over the rape of his daughters offered to the mob of Sodom by Lot (if the "yada" in Genesis 19 was really meant to be seen as "to know sexually" rather than "to know" like the rest of the "yada" in the Bible).

    I don't disrespect religion - I find that a lot of people who are religious are respectful, understanding, caring and try to be the best people they can be. I can see the benefit in their lives that their God/s bring to them. I can understand why they would feel the need to share it (if it makes you feel good, I guess you'd want others to feel good too), but most of them will respect that everyone's walk with (or without) God/s is personal.

    But I agree - your walk with God/s or without God/s is personal - it cannot be applied to anyone else. The moment it is applied to anyone else is the moment you stop living respectfully.

  • jlpark profile image
    Author

    Jacqui 2 years ago from New Zealand

    William.

    So, why insist that I, and other people like me, live by Levitical laws, when you yourself state that you do not need to any longer because of Jesus' death. Why hold me to standards you cannot reach or hold for yourself?

    ONLY in Leviticus is it said "do not do such and such" - Romans, and Corinthians speak of those who give over to lusts etc - but again, that is NOT God, nor Jesus - but Paul. Arsenokoitai and malakoi - from memory - mean effeminate and soft (and possibly eunich....). Genesis isn't about homosexuality. So, again, why should I be held to a standard higher than one you hold yourself to, just because you are uncomfortable with my sexual orientation?

    The thing with your Job story is that you state "I believe" - you can apply your belief to anything - it doesn't make it true. Just because you THINK that Job would have done such and such, doesn't mean he could or would have. Sure, he went through a lot and kept his faith - good for him. It doesn't mean that those who are homosexual aren't any less strong than he was.

    Firstly - thank you for finally half answering my question.

    "As for your question- does it matter? I don't see how it affects someone else who is already married, or why it matters. "

    Why does it matter? Because that is the issue of this hub - IT DOESN'T affect anyone bar those in the marriage. So why are you so bothered by the fact I can get married now?

    "It does however affect the marital system. It affects my faith. It affects the spreading of my religion. It affects the lives of those of us who have children. "

    HOW? You keep saying it affects you and it affects this and that - exactly how? Sure I can see how it affects the possible spreading of your religion (Spreading...does make it sounds...err...like something that needs a Dr and treating...sorry.). It makes the marital system equal (just like when women had to finally give consent to the marriage rather than it just happening..).

    Those of us with children? How does it affect that? That now, if any of your children are gay they will be seen as equal to their straight siblings? They will be endowed with the same rights as their straight siblings? How exactly is that a bad thing?

    We have a child (who will eventually have a sibling), and this ruling when it occurred in New Zealand (2-3yrs ago - and no apocolypse) meant that if she is gay, she will be treated the same as anyone else in regards to marriage. That she gets to see her parents treated as equals to her friends parents. That she is secure in the knowledge, that no matter who she is, and who as an adult she loves in a consenting adult relationship - she will be seen as equal.

    You've never heard it so it seems pointless?? I've seen it used ALL the time - "but they are ruining the sanctity of marriage if they legalise same-sex marriage" - How does my marriage ruin the sanctity of yours? Or anyone elses? How does mine affect it, but the person who says it has 2-3 divorces under their belt, yet it's MINE that will ruin the sanctity???

    You've never heard it so it seems pointless?? YOU came to THIS hub - I didn't make you, nor did I make you come back. This hub is based on how my same sex marriage will affect yours. Unless you never read it, and only came to preach to me about how I chose to be a homosexual and to find Jesus (which, if this is the case, I will have lost respect for you..). Why would it be said to you anyway? No one is saying your marriage will affect anything..

    I think we've reached the end of this William, because you keep saying it affects you in this way and that - but never HOW. Then you said that another's marriage won't affect yours....so...which is it?

    Also - I see in Austin's comment - if it's a choice - please choose it, just for a day (I'm okay with you repenting to your God after a day if that makes you feel better) - but if it;s a choice - MAKE IT. Then tell us the outcome. Cause, if you are SO CERTAIN its a choice, I'm gathering its one you must be able to make, or you wouldn't know.

    Any further religious discussion with you William will be removed. I do not wish to be converted, and my sexual orientation cannot be changed - by your God or any other.

  • Austinstar profile image

    Lela 2 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

    William, so you admit that jlpark's marriage does NOT affect YOUR marriage in any way shape or form. You say it affects your faith? the spreading of your religion? children's lives? and more. But it does NOT affect these things, you just think it does.

    You are still free to practice your faith, spread your religion, and raise your own children. So don't you think everyone else has these freedoms? You would try to take these freedoms away from 'homosexuals' because you believe they can CHOOSE to be heterosexual even if they are not.

    I challenge you to CHOOSE to be homosexual for just one day. You can repent to your god, of course, but think of it as a challenge - your God is TESTING you to give up your heterosexuality for just ONE day! If you have FAITH in your god, you will be able to do this, right?

    You god is already challenging you to give up shellfish, not go to church unto your seventh generation if you have been kicked in the balls, hand your daughter over to her rapist for more sex and so she can have rape babies, beat your slaves up to the point of death, and other wonderful laws and rules from your bible.

    Why do you CHOOSE to obey some of these things and not ALL of these things?

    Your bible is a 2,000 year old book of myths, legends, and superstitions. If you get rid of the nonsense parts, and believe in the "true" parts, I could understand. But you don't and you won't.

    So, I suggest that you go save yourself and do what you feel it is that you have to do as long as it affects YOU and only YOU. Make it very personal, you know, between you and your god.

    Then have FAITH that your god will sort it out all by himself in the end. He's supposed to be a big guy and he can take care of himself and his "flock".

    You do not have to try and pass judgement on those that do no conform to YOUR ideas of morality, faith, religion, sexuality, and whatever. Each person is responsible for themselves and their choices. YOU are not the judge and jury of people.

    You think you are preaching god's love and commandments, but you are really only preaching YOUR interpretation of god's love and commandments. And you have no right to do so. Leave the judging and condemning to your god.

  • William Dugat profile image

    William Dugat 2 years ago from Lufkin, Texas

    In Leviticus, God tells the Israelites and their priests how to make offerings in the Tabernacle and how to conduct themselves while camped around the holy tent sanctuary. The ruling of Leviticus over the Israelites ended upon Jesus' death on the cross. You do realize that there are many branches of Christianity right? There are Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Baptists, etc. Each branch of Christianity has its own way of interpretation of the bible. I, as a Baptist, interpret the word of God very differently than an atheist would. Baptists believe that homosexuality is a sin. That is what we live by, and that is what we believe.

    Do I wish that the entire world lived perfectly by the ways of Jesus Christ? Of course! Is it possible to force the world to do so? Of course not. I do not want to force my religion upon anyone. You can't force someone to be saved, or it won't be real. They have to make the decision themselves. I would recommend you listen to a song called "Learning to be the Light." There is a verse I particularly like that will explain a little better what I am saying.

    Suppose that I accept what you say. Where does it say homosexuality is OK? Where does it say it's good? Suppose you are correct and I accept that it is not condemned, but where is it accounted as correct? As I have said to some people before, it can be a challenge to grow in discipleship. God gives us challenges like this to overcome, and these challenges are different for everyone. The book of Job is a great example. Job loses his family, his land, his wealth, his reputation, and even his health. God was knowingly challenging him, to see if he could keep his faith during such hardship. This is what I believe homosexuality can be for some people. Job, if he had been gay, I believe could have overcome his sexual orientation to follow God. Marriage is defined as a man and a woman. Forget the principle of homosexuality, but instead focus on homosexual marriage and sex. These are in fact sinful. They are addressed in the bible. You may call homosexuality love if you wish, but Job lost everything he had, including his OWN KIDS. He loved his children just as much if not more than any homosexual couple alive. He lost them, and he kept his faith. He could have left any homosexual partner for his faith, and this is what God expects from those who are gay. There is considerable evidence that a homosexual orientation, and certainly the occasional homosexual experience, does not indicate a permanent state but an immature stage of sexuality that may be "fixed" at some point by physiological, psychological, or social factors, and by the individual will, all acting in combination. This has theological significance because it implies that movement toward completion or maturity will involve movement toward obedience to the biblical model. It is nothing more than a challenge. You CAN choose heterosexuality, even if it was possible to be born with the homosexual instinct. It is still a choice we CAN make.

    As for your question- does it matter? I don't see how it affects someone else who is already married, or why it matters. It does however affect the marital system. It affects my faith. It affects the spreading of my religion. It affects the lives of those of us who have children. I could go on but I've made my point. I have never heard the affect of pre-married couples used as an argument so I don't see as to how your question matters. No offense but it seems pointless.

    Say Yes To Life- As I said, it may have been a challenge from God. Something she needed to overcome. If she stayed gay then she has ultimately failed him.

  • Say Yes To Life profile image

    Yoleen Lucas 2 years ago from Big Island of Hawaii

    William Dugat and gregspalmer - Marcia Carter Stevens, back in the late 1960s, started a Christian folk rock band called "Children of the Day". It consisted of her and her husband, and her sister and her husband. They put out incredible music - "For Those Tears I Died" is my all time favorite Christian song.

    Things fell apart 10 years later when Marcia could no longer live a lie, and came out as a lesbian, being forced to divorce her bewildered husband. She now leads a ministry for homosexuals - in a religion that discriminates against her sexual orientation. It seems to me if God has such an issue with homosexuality, why does He make them that way? (I can't believe Marcia Carter chose to be a lesbian after getting married!)

  • jlpark profile image
    Author

    Jacqui 2 years ago from New Zealand

    William, I understand where you are coming from. But when you call homosexuality an abomination, or sin, where in the Bible is this coming from? Leviticus? Aside from the fact I have a hub on this already, I'll humour you.

    Do you eat shrimp? Cut your hair? Touch your wife (or ANYTHING she may have touched) whilst she is on her period? Have sex for anything other than procreation? Have sex in any other position than "missionary" (man on top)? Do you have tattoos (if not - are you actively trying to outlaw them too?). Wear clothing of two different fabircs (before you answer - check your underwear - it's usually poly cotton...and polyester is synthetic...not natural at all!!)? Would you insist your daughter marry her rapist (and his punishment be that he gives you a few dollars?)?

    Unless you follow ALL the laws of Leviciticus, why insist that all MUST follow one? It's called cherry picking and it's ignorant. (If you are Jewish, and only follow the OT, then I'm okay with it...but I've actually never had a Jewish person have any issue with me or mine).

    Cherry picking is usually taking the verse that says what you like out of context - social, historical, cultural - in the time of Lev, they were trying to forge an existence in the desert - most of the laws were around hygiene, and creating a larger group of people - so to outlaw all the bad hygiene things (and food groups known to go bad easily), and discourage any sexual relations that do not produce children makes sense.

    Is it Romans? or Corinthians? - Paul wrote those, not Jesus, not God - Paul, and was trying to encourage people to move/stay away from the Pagan faiths of the time - what is a better way to do it than claim that the more...enjoyable...aspects of the faith - it is known that some of the rituals of the Pagan faiths were sexual in nature.

    Sodom? Jesus speaks of Sodom's sins in Ezekiel, and homosexuality is not one of them - haughtiness, greed, inhospitality to guests were. There is a similar verse in Judges where the concubine is thrown out to the angry mob - yet no one seems to have an issue with that one. Nor does anyone seem to recall that Lot offered to give the angry mob his daughters when they wanted to know the strangers in his house - even if the sin was homosexuality, you don't have an issue with the gang rape he seemed happy to offer them up for? Not to mention that "Yada" is translated as TO KNOW, not "to know sexually" everywhere else in the Bible. SOunds like translator bias to me.

    Jesus himself NEVER said a WORD about homosexuality. So, following the laws of the motherland is fine. Jesus spent his time with those less fortunate, those cast aside by society - lepers, prostitutes. Yet, if we are following Jesus, I rarely see anyone doing this who doesn't have an ulterior motive (Salvation Army etc - conversion is an ulterior motive) - no one ever seems to be doing it just cause it should be done yet these are the same people who insist that everyone else should live a Christ like life.

    I understand your intentions, and I know you are trying to encourage people to come to Jesus, however, you need to also understand that your religion is one of THOUSANDS in the world, and cannot be forced on all. I am not of your religion, but I do not request that you perform same-sex acts should you not be so desiring, I do not request that you consume alcohol as a Mormon, or pork as a Jewish person, or beef as a person of Hindu belief, or that you should not wear the headcovering as a Muslim woman - I give you all the same respect. WHY should yours be put above anyone else's?

    I know it's not something you are striving for - a Theocracy - where your religion states the law of the land - you just want everyone to come to Jesus' and live by his law - with good intentions. However, the US constitution is written to prevent that. You know who else wants everyone to live by the laws of their religion??? ISIS.

    Now, I'm not saying that Chrisitians in general are like ISIS (WBC are a less lethal version...but most Christians aren't anything like that) - what I'm trying to get across is what people neglect to realise when they speak of the laws being against God, and that they should be changed to reflect what God feels. (not to mention...Which God??).

    I do understand marriage for same sex couples would cause issues for you - which is why I would recommend not taking up a job where you are required to marry them, or provide them with the licence to do so.

    BUT I still don't see how someone marrying another person whom they love PERSONALLY affects you or your marriage - unless they are marrying your wife? I do see that you have a hub on it now, so I will have a look, but if it's not answered there - this is your last chance - HOW DOES IT AFFECT YOUR MARRIAGE??? (Not your God, nor your religious beliefs but YOUR MARRIAGE)

  • William Dugat profile image

    William Dugat 2 years ago from Lufkin, Texas

    Basically, what I mean by much worse, is that less and less people will be led to Jesus Christ. That is what much of this is about. Many of you here do not understand, because you do not understand what Jesus did, and you don't understand that hell is very very real. My job as a Christian is to lead my fellow piers to God. My intentions here are always good. I don't want to ruin anyone's life. I don't want to see anyone die lost and go to hell. That is what concerns me. The bible calls homosexuality an abomination. It is a sin. Part of being saved and accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior is repenting of your sins. That means turning away from your sins, not just asking for forgiveness. You can't repent of a sin that you dwell in. My job is to share the gospel and lead people to Jesus Christ. It makes it very hard to do so when so many people are being taught that sin is OK and even sometimes encouraged. The bible says to follow the laws of your motherland, unless they violate the laws of Jesus Christ. Marrying a same sex couple would violate the laws of the Lord. Not marrying a same sex couple will soon violate the laws of the nation. You can see as to how this will cause issues right?

    gregspalmer- Wise words my friend.

  • gregspalmer profile image

    Gregory S Palmer 2 years ago from North Richland Hills

    Nothing so effectually advertises the Gospel as the transformed lives of those who have received it. This fact has been often noted by careful observers, but here we find that Scripture itself recognizes it. Conversely nothing so effectually stultifies the proclamation of the Gospel as breakdown and sin on the part of those who profess to have believed it. In the light of this, and of the sad conditions prevailing in the Christianized nations, can we wonder that the evangelist in these lands finds himself confronted by hard and difficult conditions today? May God give help to each one of us so that our lives may tell in favor of the Gospel and not against it.

  • gregspalmer profile image

    Gregory S Palmer 2 years ago from North Richland Hills

    Thank you for you kind response. To Answer question I think My Family BENEFITS from it's legalization, including my relationship with my wife, my children benefit as well as our ministry. Same with the removal of GOD in our Schools! The mandated education to our Children about Judaic Christian beliefs is GODLY. The legalization of SSM is GODLY! It is ridiculous it even had to go as far as the supreme court provided the obvious outcome!

    The existence of a "Christianized" government is an Oxymoron providing that its laws would have to be enforced by the punishment of non believers. It is only in the essence of true Free Will "God given Right" that Christianity makes since. During the at time the bible was written to "Obey the laws of the government" when Nero (a tyrannical leader) was ruling.

    Conversely nothing so effectually stultifies the proclamation of the Gospel as breakdown and sin on the part of those who profess to have believed it. In the light of this, and of the sad conditions prevailing in the Christianized nations, can we wonder that the evangelist in these lands finds himself confronted by hard and difficult conditions today?

    May God give help to each one of us so that our lives may tell in favor of the Gospel and not against it.

    A disciple is a person who sits under a teacher and learns the ways and beliefs of the teacher. To be a disciple of Christ is to submit to His authority and believe His teachings, seeking to put them into obedient practice by the power of the Holy Spirit. gives the content of the teaching, “all that I commanded you.” The primary place to find the teaching of Christ is in the Gospels and the Epistles. Some of the personal disciples of Christ to whom this commission was first given wrote (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) the content of the faith. Things that Christ has not clearly commanded us as recorded in Scripture are not within the scope of the type of discipleship mentioned. Those who would teach other matters have a difficult time establishing the content of the faith and are not effective in changing the lives of others!

    I also was an agnostic atavist for most of my life even arguing the Agnostic views with new PHD graduates from seminary. I argued that all truth was untrue - providing that perception cannot perceive itself, will cannot unwill itself and the ONLY constant phenomenon is change. Even experiments whose outcomes are predictable, especially in regards to sociological and religious comprehension are merely a constant phenomenon that have had the same result with no guarantees that their wont be a moment that the outcome is not different. Even with 14 years of "Theology" schooling you have the capacity to believe it bests murder those who believe like you do today next week, myself included. Of course this happened to Paul / Saul when he was murdering and persecuting Christians in the name of God and then i believe wrote most of the New Testament.

    Our "Faith" and our Bible the word "Word" and how we are KNOW to be believers has to do with our tongues, and consequently with our hearts which express themselves thereby. Sins of the tongue are terribly common even among Christians. We all know the kind of words that are provoked by anger, wrath and malice. Would any true believer blaspheme? Hardly, yet how very easily it is to fall into speaking of God and of divine things in a light and irreverent way. Like speaking against the free rights of anyone. How easy too it is to utter unsavory things with our lips, even if we do not go so far as “filthy communications.” And what about lying? An Ananias or a Sapphira may still be found. And we may go further and assert that every one of us who possesses a sensitive conscience knows right well that it is no easy thing to stick to absolute and rigid truth in all our utterances.

  • gregspalmer profile image

    Gregory S Palmer 2 years ago from North Richland Hills

    I was a very active Agnostic for the majority of my life, often speaking in to Seminaries with Phd students to argue deconstructionism and that their "understanding of Truth" was volatile making all truth untrue. Their comprehension of truth (as well as mine) has the possibility to change and and the only constant phenomenon is change. Perception cannot perceive itself, will cannot un-will itself and you may die for your "Truth" today only to kill those who believe like "you do" in a weeks time. This was even evident with Saul's persecution of Christians one day then becoming the author of 50%+ of the new testament. We were organised and studied Christian doctrine in-depth leaving no "hole" for our evaluation to correct. Mainly because correct (absolute truth) doesn't exist only a constant phenomenon we evaluate. I took my investigations to a new level by "trying out" and documenting the Christian experience from the inside only to disprove it. It was very difficult to listen, especially act "in faith" with the ridiculous stuff like Tithe and Pray. I soon found that my evaluations of "Christ" was mainly based on my evaluations of Christians and as more data was obtained there WAS statistical evidence of the "Supernatural Faithfulness" of faith time and time again until "Math" in my findings were so bizarre i was more likely to win the lottery than their not be some truth to the claim. However Christian behavior was an impossible obstacle to overcome. I believe now that less that 1 out of 10 represent the Christ like behavior that can only come from allowing yourself to be changed by that "Spirit" that is preached instead of attempting to change yourself and finding yourself right back where you started but now with "Christian" on your facebook!

    To answer your question the legalization effects me, my family, my 5 children and our ministry (God's true word) very positively. I fight for the right for everyone to choose their choices in life and it is absurd that it even has to be heard by the supreme court, especially given the predictability of the ruling. I believe the removal and enforcement of mandatory Judaic / Christian teachings in our schools is Godly! I believe Same Sex Marriage being allowed is Godly. The word tells Christians to OBEY the laws of the government, this was stated when Nero, one of the most ruthless rulers, maybe a close runner up to Stalin was empowered. 11 disciples spread through the world with the true Gospel during this time of persecution.

    A Christian run government is Theologically impossible as it would mandate Christian "Law" (oxymoron) and mandate judgement / punishment of non-believers. This is a restriction of free will (created by God) is a degenerate environment for the development of true believers. This is virtually the environment we have created, or allowed to be created by the richest people for their agenda.

    Wherever humans may be and in whatever social configuration, we are to preach the gospel to them with all of its attendant claims. The idea of ruling over them in their social and cultural aggregate and coercing (or at least convincing them by very persuasive means) them to obey the Old Testament law in full detail (excluding ceremonial laws) does not clearly appear in any of the passages in the new "Covenant" which is where Christianity is founded. It is fair to ask if anyone who had not presupposed Reconstructionism's version of post-millennialism would understand any of the Great Commission passages, in this manner.

    Christians today in "Christianized" countries ignore much the things mentioned in our "book of truth" that have to do with our tongues, and consequently with our hearts which express themselves thereby. Sins of the tongue are terribly common even among Christians. We all know the kind of words that are provoked by anger, wrath and malice. Would any true believer blaspheme? Hardly, yet how very easily it is to fall into speaking of God and of divine things in a light and irreverent way. How easy too it is to utter unsavoury things with our lips, even if we do not go so far as “filthy communications.” is it not true the ignorant statements about how our country will fall apart because Same Sex Marriage is way beyond the boundaries of filthy communication it is outright casting stones. And what about lying? And we may go further and assert that every one of us who possesses a sensitive conscience knows right well that it is no easy thing to stick to absolute and rigid truth in all our utterance.

    The conclusion that follows from the Biblical texts themselves is that "Christians" in America have read their own presuppositions into the passages in which they “find” their agenda. As shown, the Bible mandates we do not teach, or imply the rulership of Christians over the world system or other people of any sort.

    Disciples are persons not political or cultural aggregates as defined sociologically. They are people joined to the Lord and one another to make up the church. They have been called out of the world as it exists in its system of autonomy and rebellion, but not out of it geographically. They still function in the world, interacting in the arena of human affairs (another meaning of kosmos in the New Testament) as lights in a dark world. Paul admonishes, “That you may prove yourselves to be blameless and innocent, children of God above reproach in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you appear as lights in the world” (Philippians 2:15). The Great Commission instructs us to preach the gospel, baptize converts, instruct them in the teachings of Christ and to continue to be His witnesses through the power of the Holy Spirit who indwells us. Attempts to teach GAYS that their ways are Sinful and politically fighting against their God Given Right of free choice is inverted as a true ministry, cultural dominion mandate is not sin and rebellion against God as they charge.

    Sin is however rising and establishing a political movement to oppress others in the name of God, much like Nero does!

    Nothing so effectually advertizes the Gospel as the transformed lives of those who have received it. This fact has been often noted by careful observers, but here we find that Scripture itself recognizes it. Conversely nothing so effectually stultifies the proclamation of the Gospel as breakdown and sin on the part of those who profess to have believed it. In the light of this, and of the sad conditions prevailing in the Christianized nations, can we wonder that the evangelist in these lands finds himself confronted by hard and difficult conditions today? May God give help to each one of us so that our lives may tell in favour of the Gospel and not against it.

    Christians living like Christ requires supernatural change that we don't work hard to achieve it is worked free in us by transformation in faith only.

    Thank you for allowing my voice to be heard.

    I posted a hub "Is Christian marriage a better model than Same Sex Marriage" you may be interested in reading!

  • jlpark profile image
    Author

    Jacqui 2 years ago from New Zealand

    GregPalmer - thank you for your comment. It made for a very interesting read (from this Agnostic Atheist point of view), making very good sense.

    I learnt quite a bit from your comment - about the way it is viewed that Christianity is valid etc. I have no issue with those who are Christian, nor those who are both Christian and anti-LGBT/Equality - it is when they are trying to force their belief of what they think that God wants onto all those around them that I have an issue.

    I particularly like your last paragraph. I often see people bashing on about living a life like Christ, or at least one Jesus would be proud of - that Marriage Equality is an affront to God, and one should be living Christ like - yet, often these people (admittedly the more public persona's - Santorum, Gingrich etc) are often living a live that is nothing like Christ.

    In order to make sure I am treating all commentors equally - I do have to ask you the one thing I ask everyone - can you tell me if my (or anyone's) same-sex marriage has affected yours? And how?

    Thank you again for your comment.

  • gregspalmer profile image

    Gregory S Palmer 2 years ago from North Richland Hills

    Why do we reject ALL individuals and their acts that doesn't fit into our model of behavior? A previous comment described the fight for gay marriage as"your (LGBT) politically powerful and militant LGBT organization". MY goodness were have we lost it to be so hypocritical to state things like that with the FACTS that the "Republican = Christian" propaganda is obviously the most powerful "militant" propaganda movement that rarely supports the benefits of the voter! We discriminate and attempt intimidation of those fighting for their rights of privacy, votes, beliefs and rights to even talk about what they want to. Sociological science that is allegedly based with facts against the right to have their rights over their children not having to learn Judaic / Christian LAWS in School, SSM, free speech, science experimentation is based on Christian bigotry and fears. FEAR = False Evidence Appearing Real. We Christians who reject the science that doesn't support Christian Theology and accept the science that supports it are folding into the abyss that we are attempting to keep others from. However we also cant ignore the things that are against the teachings of Christian faith either so were does that put the believer today?

    An evaluation of the Faith Based, Christ centered home whose ministry creates more believers than creates skepticism in others is one that's based on supernatural faith. Does epistemology create skepticism of Christianity more so than ones evaluation of the position the "Christian" makes?

    A study of the validity of Christianity requires a Faith initiative that trough that faith and only the act in faith one can research the validity of the Christian doctrine. If one with the highest levels of skepticism tests the validity of Christ the outcome is opposite of a skeptic testing the validity of a Christian. Atheists, agnostics and other self defined non-believers may have studied the history, behavior, position, science, and other attributes of Christian faith and history and come to an absolute conclusion of non belief, however what the essence and fundamentals of obtaining the truth about the existence of "God" requires is acting in"Faith" regardless of how little faith one has. If one is to do a thorough examination in search of the truth one must study the supernatural by also living and acting in faith as described in the "Word" (bible).

    Let's be it be understood that the position of Christians who are in argument and opposed or against any action, belief or behavior that a "NON-Believer" has is against the "Rules" that is thoroughly described in the bible. This "Word" is the "Living Word" of God and others will NOT examine the faithfulness of God or search for the Truth by examination in faith if Christians are evaluated instead of God being evaluated by an "act of faith" and response to God's faithfulness.

    My Jesus wouldn't fire his weapon against anyone, wouldn't shame anyone, wouldn't wouldn't associate with (IN FACT DESPISES) the Pharisees that bash with the "LAWS" of God instead of accept through the LOVE of him.

  • jlpark profile image
    Author

    Jacqui 2 years ago from New Zealand

    Conflict of Interest - if his employees also happen to be his bible study group. Should have been either approved, or they (his bosses) have to be aware of the conflict of interest. I have to tell my employers of a conflict of interest, and I'm merely one of 6000 employees at a large hospital/health board.

    But hey - let me know when his case goes to court - what the outcome is.

    It will affect everything? Like? What's "Much worse?" Examples please. Your religious freedoms are not being annihilated - you are still more than free to practice your faith, to gather as a group and worship, to tell people of your faith (if they should ask - this does NOT mean you can force anyone to live by your faith), and you are free to practice your faith in private should you wish. (Freedom to Believe, Freedom to Share your Faith, Freedom to form a religious organisation (church) to worship peacefully, and Freedom to live your Faith - https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2015/04/pre...

    The First Amendment itself states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." -

    No one is stopping you from practicing your religion. BUT your religion is NOT outside the law, and Discrimination is against the law. There are a number of exemptions in the Marriage Equality stuff - in many of the States who already had it - that exempt those of religious backing - eg Pastors, Bishops (employees of the Church) from having to perform weddings that are against the teaching of the Church. Those states who did not have marriage equality prior to June 26th, may not have these - which may be a case of poor planning, but can easily be added in.

    Fox News? A simple google search should answer your question - I googled Fox News and the top google post is one about Fox News Controversies. Accusations of bias, the content is controlled by the Executive Memo, etc etc. But hey - like I said - watch what you like. I'm not stopping you. You provided a resource, I don't necessarily have to like it, but thanks for providing one.

    (Sorry, I could be wrong - we have THREE News shows (and their lunchtime and late night updates) in New Zealand - all completely unbiased. So it disturbs me that a news source is known to have bias as many of them do in the US (yes, I googled the others) - I am willing to retract the statement if you like)

    Perversion - first you compliment me on being civil, then when the going gets tough, you turn to insults (I'm gathering you were trying to be insulting, given you repeated it) I can't change what you believe, and I'm not trying to, you can think it's a perversion all you like - but in polite conversation, it's not something you haul out to make a point.

    What is perverted about my marriage? That I'm monogamous? That I love my wife with all my being, and our family more than I know? That I want to protect my family in the event of my death, or illness? That I want to be able to give my family the same things a straight person would be able to under the law? That I pay my taxes on time, and in full? That I wish to qualify for the same benefits as my straight counterparts have?

    What is perverted about that?

    You STILL didn't answer the actual question - what affect does marriage equality have on YOUR OWN MARRIAGE?

    Or have you not answered it, because you can't without admitting - it doesn't have any? (And William, all I want is an answer to it - so if you can't because of this reason, all you need to do is say so, and we can leave this as friends.)

  • William Dugat profile image

    William Dugat 2 years ago from Lufkin, Texas

    Did you know that he handed out the book to his bible study group, who just so happened to be his employees? He didn't need approval. Your same sex marriage will affect everything. What you don't see is that this is a stepping stone for things to get much much worse. This is the first step in the annihilation of religious freedoms. This is the first step in the further perversion (YES I SAID PERVERSION) of the marital system. This is the first step in the further ruin of this once great nation. And why is it you suppose fox news has a bad rep? Please answer.

  • jlpark profile image
    Author

    Jacqui 2 years ago from New Zealand

    William - Did you watch the video, and did you read the article? He did not seek the proper approval prior to publishing the book, which is why he was fired. If there is a protocol you MUST follow in your job, and you don't follow it - you are likely to be reprimanded, and being fired is one of those things that can be done. Given his position on the Fire Service, he is in a position that could bring the office of the Mayor and the City into disrepute.

    It would be like a CEO of a hospital publishing a book on his personal views against abortion - not appropriate - he is entitled to have those views, but it's not appropriate to be sharing them when in his position in such a public way like publishing a book, without clearing it first with those to whom he answers to - such as the Prime Minister or Mayor of the City.

    Fox News doesn't have the best reputation but hey, if it's the one you wanna use.

    Anyway, you have ONE more chance to answer the question - HOW does anyone's SAME-SEX Marriage affect yours?

    Austin - Exactly.

    I'm getting frustrated with the getting off of topic - no further comments will be accepted if they are not on topic (or answering a question posed in a previous comment...)

  • William Dugat profile image

    William Dugat 2 years ago from Lufkin, Texas

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/01/07/atlanta-... he was fired because of his religious views and nothing has been done. He is filing a lawsuit, but that is allowed for the LGBs too. The fed. gov. is doing nothing in any of the cases.

  • Austinstar profile image

    Lela 2 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

    To - Say Yes - No, I wasn't confused. I was just replying to William in an obscure way. My bad. The topic is about how s/s marriages do not affect hetero marriages which, when you think about it, if we all just mind our own marriages (or business), the issue would just go away. That was the point I was trying to make. I just expressed it badly and to you, instead of to William. Sorry.

    To William - why don't you concentrate on your Christianity in your home and church and let the rest of the world worry about their lives.

  • jlpark profile image
    Author

    Jacqui 2 years ago from New Zealand

    Let's start with the verse - proof, not from the Bible, that this was the basis of liberty and justice for all. You cannot use the book you are trying to provide proof for as proof of the book. Where does it say 'because of this, we think this' in a source OTHER than the one you are trying to prove.

    The countries you speak of - Africa in particular - you do realise that Christianity is the reason for Uganda's Kill the Gays bill? That there is an anti-gay American pastor who helped promote it, and from memory is being charged with human rights crimes (or hate crimes...he's being charged with something in connection with it).

    Yes, I gather that under Sharia law you and I are as likely to be killed.

    You talk about states you can be fired for just being Christian - which ones? I could be fired in (abbrev states) - ID, WY, ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, TX, AR, LA, MS, TN, GA, VI, FL, AL, SC, NC, and WN. None of these states covers sexual orientation or gender identity/expression discrimination in their non-discrimination laws - yet, they do for religion. (Search states where it's legal to be fired for being gay - Wikipedia has a good list, but there are numerous other sources) - so which of the United States of America can you be fired in LEGALLY just for being Christian? (And those who resigned over giving out SS marriage licences were not fired, and if they were - they are public servants - like myself - they follow the law to the letter - if they weren't doing their job properly or refusing to - it's not discrimination on their employers part to fire them - If you can't do the job, you get fired).

    I thought you were tired of this conversation? I'm tired of circles with out you actually telling me something -

    HOW does my marriage affect yours? How does same sex marriage affect yours in any way?

  • William Dugat profile image

    William Dugat 2 years ago from Lufkin, Texas

    You do realize that in those countries you say you can be "killed JUST for being gay," you can (in most of those countries) be killed JUST for being Christian. In the middle east, there is practically no law. There are many countries where you can be beaten, abused and killed only for being a woman. In Africa especially. You can be killed simply for being alive. Someone can say they don't like you, and they can kill you, and no one will do a thing. There are many states where you can be persecuted and fired legally MERELY for being Christian. Your case? You need to broaden to more than your typical one sided argument.

    There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. -Galatians 3:28

    The founding fathers used the bible in many of their decisions, including this one. Although they were deists, they used God to their advantage to help create the nation we live in today. Liberty and justice for all roots from all men are created equal. All men are created equal rooted from the founding fathers, who were influenced to create that because of this verse.

  • jlpark profile image
    Author

    Jacqui 2 years ago from New Zealand

    William, william, william. I thought you were over this conversation.

    Firstly, was it not that the founding fathers came to America to flee from stifling and extremist Christianity in Europe? They came to America to be free to practice their faith/s as they wished - and created the First Amendment to ensure Freedom of Religion.

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

    -- First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

    Notice how it doesn't mention that it should be "solely" Christian??

    Now, you would dislike it if I bunched you with the people of Westboro Baptist Church, and said that MOST Christians are like the WBC. Or for those of you who think the Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormon's aren't Christian, if I lumped most of you with them. I find it incredibly distasteful, and somewhat offensive (don't you worry, I've a much thicker skin than you'd think....but I'm being offended for those who don't - those who are young, and struggling) what you are saying.

    You actually think that people would CHOOSE to be gay for attention - attention that could get them KILLED? In several countries in the world, where there are gay people, they can legally be killed JUST for being gay. Why would any one CHOOSE to be something that will get them kicked out of their home, lose their family, be beaten, be bullied to such an extent they are suicidal? Receive death threats merely because they insisted that they be treated like anyone else when purchasing a wedding cake? Why would anyone CHOOSE this?

    Most of the LGBT I know do not WANT any attention. Like myself, they just want to live with the same rights as their straight counterparts, and marriage equality has achieved a LOT of these (not all) - I just want to be able to live my life knowing that my family is protected by law, that my child/ren will be treated the same, that my wife will have access to our daughter should she be ill and in hospital, that should I be killed at work - my family will receive remuneration rather than having no legal right to it, despite having been my all for the last 10yrs. Did you know that whilst marriage equality is in all 50 states - that in 32 states a Trans person can be fired or denied housing MERELY for being trans, that in 20-odd states, someone can be fired or denied housing merely for being LGB? Do you have that risk hanging over you?

    Like I've said earlier - there are a small number of vocal christians, and a small number of vocal LGBT - in both of these groups there are those who shout first, think later (if they stop to think at all). They give those of us who are Christians, or LGBT, but not vocal a bad name if you lump us all in with one. I could give you the benefit of the doubt that the only gay people you know of are the more vocal ones, but I doubt that's who you meant.

    Your last paragraph both makes me annoyed, at the same time as making my laugh - you are saying that it's a Christian idea, yet provide no proof - disregarding the fact that there are cultures and faiths that predate Christianity that did not go around enforcing their religion on others, or killing, raping or enslaving people who were "less than them" - Christianity teaches that other religions (and therefore the followers of those religions) are lesser, that women are lesser (property of their husband, must marry their rapist, need to be a virgin at marriage or can be stoned to death), that a man can have many slaves (therefore someone of another religion, race etc are lesser), that those who come from a particular place are lesser (Canaanites etc). So when you say the Idea that "All men are created equal" came from the Bible - the wee quote may have, but the actions of the rest of the book don't support the statement.

    You state it comes from the Bible - the idea of Liberty etc - can you provide proof of this? (Now, because you are the one making the positive claim - that it DEFINATELY came from the Bible - you are the one who needs to provide the proof).

    Otherwise, I will happily come to a hub you have written on the subjects on which we are speaking - but I would like to draw this hub back to the issue of Same-sex Marriage or Marriage Equality - rather than religion. I will either let your next comment be accepted if you are answering any question on this comment, or discussing Marriage Equality again, or directing me to your own hub on the subject - otherwise, I will not allow it - as I would like this hubs comments to remain on the topic at hand.

    Thank you for your understanding.

    Austin - thanks for your understanding as well - and your comments. Whilst you haven't strayed far from the topic at hand - I will have to provide the same rules to all.

  • William Dugat profile image

    William Dugat 2 years ago from Lufkin, Texas

    I am aware of that, but this country was founded on Christianity, and no one seems to care anymore. We all care too much about those who aren't Christians, that we often cheat ourselves. The hand thing would be a choice. We could teach ourselves to write with the opposite hand should we choose. Many gay people want to be gay to draw attention (not all, just most). There is an endless number of people in the world who only want to draw attention or complain about something. Most gay people belong to that group.

    "The U.S. is built on the concept of Liberty and justice for all, not Liberty and justice for only religious people. It's Liberty and justice for ALL. And that means liberty and justice for the non-religious too."

    Yes that's true, but more importantly, it was founded on Christianity. Are you aware that the entire principle of liberty and justice for all came from the idea that all men are created equal, and that that belief came from the bible?

  • Joseph O Polanco profile image

    Joseph O Polanco 2 years ago

    I've given this some more thought and even published a hub about it: https://hubpages.com/relationships/How-Your-Same-S...

  • Austinstar profile image

    Lela 2 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

    William, maybe we can compare being 'gay' to being left-handed. Yes, we are born with these tendencies. Most of us are born naturally right-handed, but a consistent percentage of babies born are left-handed.

    Is that a choice? Can you choose to write with your left hand if you are born right-handed? Can you choose to write with your right hand if you are born left-handed? I suppose it would be possible, but it would go against your natural tendencies. It would not be natural for you to switch 'handedness'.

    And just to point out one thing, the bible is NOT a source of law or morality or justice for everyone. It's only a source of religious faith for Christians. The bible does NOT dictate who can marry and who can't if they are not Christian. So, please stop insisting that it is.

    Not EVERYONE is Christian, there are people in the world who belong to other faiths, or to no faith at all.

  • William Dugat profile image

    William Dugat 2 years ago from Lufkin, Texas

    Same to you jlpark. As for the goats and things like that... That was not something I think God intended with the creation of marriage. He says a man shall cleave to his wife, and he says in Adam and Eve's story that they are equal beings. I don't think he would want the woman to have no say in the matter. Back in colonial times is what we needed to preserve. That was the age where marriage did not allow divorce or interracial. I am against both of those concepts as well, but since they have long since been existent, I am in no position to complain about those guess! Honestly I wish I could restore marriage back to the way it was back in those days, but sadly I will never be able to get close to that. It's way beyond me! I appreciate your willingness to have this conversation, but I believe I am done now. I have voiced my opinion, and I see no point in carrying this further, as I am aware there is no possibility of changing your mind! Appreciate it again... Bye

  • jlpark profile image
    Author

    Jacqui 2 years ago from New Zealand

    Thank you for admitting to a change of heart.

    However, the denial of service thing is a curly one - would the bakery fined recently be okay serving someone a cake to celebrate a divorce, or their second/third/fourth wedding? Would they be okay with a wedding cake where the couple already have children (either together or from previous relationship)? They claimed that to deny the gay couple a cake was because of their religious beliefs that came from the bible - but the bible also states that divorce is a sin, and that a bride should be a virgin on her wedding day (or she should be stoned). So they were cherry picking the bits that fitted with the people they didn't like. Hiding their bigotry behind religion doesn't make it not bigotry. (Now, to be honest I may have mixed the Sweet Cakes case and the Relgious Freedom laws in Indiana together!)

    The denial of service based on a specific group of people when you are a business open to the public is discrimination and therefore illegal. It would be like having a sign saying 'we don't serve blacks, Jews, or Muslims' - it's illegal.

    I haven't heard about te Irish thing - I was discussing this with a Mormon friend the other day - there are people I wouldn't want performing my wedding - that would be those who don't agree with it - that's just dumb.

    But there are a vocal minority in both the Christian camp and the LGBT camp who make the rest of us in either camp look bad - the vocal LGBT who insists that a church must marry them regardless of it's beliefs etc - and the vocal Chrisitian who feels that all of the laws of the land should abide by their bible (that the First Amendment ONLY applies to their religion) - makes the rest of use look stupid because people assume a LGBT are like that, an that all Christians are like that.

    However, we did discuss that a person in the Church who happens to be gay, and wants to marry in the church they grew up in may have an issue. In NZ we have a clause that means that any marriage celebrant associated with a church or religious institution does NOT have to perform a marriage they do not support. However if you are an independent celebrant, you don't have this clause if you are Relgious but work independently.

    Most of us don't wish that and would never force that on anyone and would just find someone else - I did with my wedding photographer - I understood the original we wanted didn't agree with our marriage so I found another without fuss. Again it's a case of a vocal minority.

    Marriage is a civil contract, not a religious one. If it was solely religious - it would be able to be had by atheists or those not of that belief. It predates

    Christianity, and is evidenced in cultures that have not experienced Christianity (or prior to their experience). It is a contract between two people under the government of their country.

    Redefining marriage? It's been done again and again - the fact that you can't sell yr daughter to her husband for 3 goats and a cow means it's been redefined. The fact that women are not mens property in marriage any longer means it's been redefined. That a woman has to consent to it means it's been redefined. That arguement was used with interacial as well I think!

    William thank you for this civil discussion and your honest replies. It's been a pleasure to discuss this with you.

  • Austinstar profile image

    Lela 2 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

    William you are brainwashed by your fundamentalist Christian roots. East Texas can't get anymore bible belt in their thinking. If you want religious laws instead of secular laws, you are going to have to move to another country. The U.S. is built on the concept of Liberty and justice for all, not Liberty and justice for only religious people. It's Liberty and justice for ALL. And that means liberty and justice for the non-religious too.

  • William Dugat profile image

    William Dugat 2 years ago from Lufkin, Texas

    When I say everyone is born gay, I mean that everyone is born with the natural instinct to be straight. I have recently read some other comments from other posts and I have had a slight change at heart. I realize now that homosexuality is not a sin, but gay sex is. I've been thinking about it and I never could get why God would create someone in a sinful image, but now that I realize that the bible does not condemn homosexuality, but instead gay sex, I see that he does this as a trial, to test someones faith. The way I see it, you may be born with a sexual desire to be gay, but it is your job to avoid those feelings, and change to the ways of Christianity. On another note, I personally don't care if someone wants to be gay. I just care about gay marriage and the compromise of our religious freedoms which it will lead to. The gay community is not going to stop pushing for more and more, and what they are working on now, is taking away our right to denial of service. They will soon make it like Ireland, where a church was forced to pay a fine for not marrying a same sex couple. This is my concern. I have absolutely no issue with a person being gay, because that has no affect on me. When they start redefining the marital system and taking away my religious freedoms, then I have an issue.

  • Say Yes To Life profile image

    Yoleen Lucas 2 years ago from Big Island of Hawaii

    Audtinstar - I've never had any issues with homosexuality. I believe you have me confused with someone else.

  • Austinstar profile image

    Lela 2 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

    Say Yes, I wonder if it might be none of our business if consenting adults want to have sex. Seriously, they're not doing it out in the street in front of people, right? Well, if so, they would get arrested just like heterosexuals who do it in public.

    The only way to get offended by any two consenting adults having sex is to try and imagine them "doing it". Or perhaps by watching pornography.

    So, if you have a "choice", I think it would be best to just mind your own sexuality and quit trying to tell others how to "do it".

    What a great world this would be if everyone took care of their own house and responsibilities and quit trying to tell others how to act.

  • jlpark profile image
    Author

    Jacqui 2 years ago from New Zealand

    Yoleen - thanks for yr comment - something to think on aye?!

    William - your VERY first comment proves it's not a choice - you couldn't do it unless you changed the guy to a woman (unless of course you are attracted to trans women (MTF)). You couldn't make yourself attracted to a man because you aren't gay. Just like I can't make myself attracted to a man, because I'm not straight.

    Your choice theory would also then mean that people choose to be straight - but just a comment ago you said everyone is born straight. Which is it?

    An yet again, it doesn't prove choice. You take the pb and j, because you are allergic to the fish. You don't have a choice. You can't take the fish. Unless you have a death wish. It's an odd analogy.

    Why is it that many a straight person (usually those who are anti-gay or anti-equality) seems to think they are the authority on how sexuality comes about, particularly when it comes to homosexuality - when the only sexuality they know how it came about is their own? Why do people who are not gay insist that being gay is a choice, yet their orientation is not? And call those of us who are actually gay liars when we say there was no choice? If anyone should know, don't you think we'd be the experts?

  • Say Yes To Life profile image

    Yoleen Lucas 2 years ago from Big Island of Hawaii

    I had same-sex crushes until I was 10 years old, and I even had a few afterwards. I'm finding the older I get, the more heterosexual I become.

    I personally believe homosexuality is nature's form of population control. That is because I've noticed it proliferates in crowded urban areas. I grew up in Oakland near San Francisco, which is the male homosexual capital of the US; Berkeley and Santa Cruz are its "Sister" cities.

    In my study of the 10 most practiced religions, I've noticed religions from crowded countries like India are more accepting of homosexuality, while the sparsely populated countries like the Middle East are more condemning of it.

    In the classic book, "Everything You've Always Wanted to Know about Sex, but Were Afraid to Ask", it states that sexuality is on a spectrum. No one is 100% straight or gay. Bisexuals range around 50%; a "totally" straight or gay person may rank around 96%. It is common for straight people to have gay fantasies, and vice versa.

    Are people born that way, or is it a choice? I believe it's both.

  • William Dugat profile image

    William Dugat 2 years ago from Lufkin, Texas

    If I turn him into a woman I can easily. I'll give you an example of the "not something we think about" principle. I am allergic to fish. Say I have a PB&J in front of me and a fish fillet. I would not consider the fish because I am allergic. I probably wouldn't even look at it I would just pass it over. I had the CHOICE to eat it but I never even considered eating it. I would really appreciate if you made the comments a bit shorter. I'm getting tired too and reading all this on my very very small computer screen is giving me a headache. And it's OK as I said I understand I'm getting pretty tired too.

  • jlpark profile image
    Author

    Jacqui 2 years ago from New Zealand

    William...

    An opinion does not automatically mean it's fact - the way you see it is your opinion. You state "there is no way to be born gay" - how do you know this? Is it because you were born straight? Just because you weren't born gay, doesn't mean no one is. It's funny just how many people who aren't gay think they know how we come to our sexual orientation - I did not make a choice, I am gay.

    You speak of "no scientific proof" - if there is no scientific proof of cause (environment, etc) then there is also no proof that people are born straight. Can you provide me with articles that show that it has been proven that there is no cause for sexual orientation?

    You then go on to state "I believe we all choose" - so, you contradict yourself - you say everyone is born straight, then tell me we ALL (gay, straight, bi, asexual) choose. You say it's not a choice that most people give a thought to....usually 'choices' we don't give much thought to are things that come naturally to us......err, because there isn't a choice to be made - you are the sexual orientation you are.

    Then you go on to say it's undecided if you are single. WHICH ONE IS IT?? Make up your mind, man. Are we born straight? Do we chose or is it undecided until we fall in love, and then it's undecided if we are suddenly single again after that? Or is it that ONLY gay people are 'undecided" if they are single, but not the straight people? Are you saying that if you were single, you could quite easily become gay? Because if it's undecided it would have to be EVERYONE - because otherwise, it's sexual orientation dependant, therefore it's not undecided is it?

    Yes, all were denied the right to marry someone of the same sex. For most, that was NOT an issue, so they weren't actually denied anything and had the right to marry who they loved, and access to the rights and benefits that come with marriage. But imagine if the right to marry someone of the OPPOSITE sex was the thing being denied to the population, and it was me saying to you " But, everyone is denied equally - none of us can marry the opposite sex". YOU would be the one being denied the right to marry the person whom you are attracted to, that you love, that you are committed to, because they were of the opposite gender and that is the ONLY gender you felt anything towards. Which is what you are saying is perfectly ok, when it was the other way around?

    It's only those who this law NEVER affected that use the "but everyone was denied that" line. It doesn't affect you, because you can marry the love of your life, and have always been able too (at least in the last 50 yrs - if your partner is of a different race) - I'm a little rusty on it, but I can imagine that the same, or similar, lines were used by those who were against inter-racial marriage - everyone was denied equally the right to marry outside of their race - and those who used such lines were people in one race marriages. What is the difference?

    Have you been denied the right to be at the bedside of a loved one whilst they were dying? Despite having been their life partner for 20+yrs? Have you been denied visiting rights to a child who calls you parent, who you have raised, who is in the hospital because you are the non-biological parent, and your state does not recognise your relationship (to either the child or your life long partner)? Have you had your wishes disregarded because your family who disowned you when you came out step in and push out your partner of 20+yrs on your death bed, and then do everything the way you DIDN'T want it done (and your partner knew what you wanted?). I suggest you watch "Bridegroom" on YouTube - this happens all the time to hundreds of gay people prior to Marriage Equality, but Bridegroom is a small doco about Tom Bridegroom and the death of his partner. All of these things happen EVERY DAY to gay couples (prior to the June 26 ruling at least).

    You still haven't answered my original question - if it's a choice - CHOOSE TO BE GAY - right now. Find a man in your vicinity, and find him sexually, romatically, and physically attractive (enough that you'd want to have sex with him, marry him even) Choose to find him as such. Can you do it?

    I'll answer any other question or comment - WHEN you answer that for me. (and my apologies if I came over a bit assertive/aggressive this time...I'm tired)

  • William Dugat profile image

    William Dugat 2 years ago from Lufkin, Texas

    The way I see it, everyone is born straight. There isn't any way to be born gay. There is no scientific proof of the genes causing it or environment or anything of that matter.

    I believe we all choose, but for most of us who are straight it is not a choice we give thought to.

    What I am pointing to with the love perspective is that if you are going to use that as an excuse, you have to agree then that sexual orientation depends completely on who you love. If you're gay because you love someone of the same sex, as many gay people say attempting to explain their homosexuality, then you deciding you're gay all depends on who you love. Sexual orientation, according to that theory, is undecided until you fall in love.

    Austin- There was no discrimination. Everyone was subject to the same laws. Everyone was legally permitted to marry one person of the opposite gender. That is the textbook definition of Equal Protection Under the Law. Here are a few examples of discrimination. Women's suffrage- women could not vote and men could. Black rights- Black people could not do things that white people could do. In these examples, one portion of the population was allowed something that another portion was not. In this case, everyone was allowed marriage of opposite gender. However no one was allowed marriage of the same gender. There was always equal protection under the law. If men had the right to marry the same sex, and women did not, that would be an example of discrimination. When everyone has the same rights, discrimination simply is not present.

  • Austinstar profile image

    Lela 2 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

    In my younger days, I was purely heterosexual and I think a lot of that had to do with the circle I grew up with. Homosexuality was hidden and scorned. I worked with one girl that gave me a sexual vibe, but I was in a relationship with a guy at the time and never bothered to explore those feelings.

    Now I am post menopausal, I am asexual. I never get "turned on" anymore except by super smart people like Niel deGrasse Tyson or other cerebral types. I would rather have a great conversation than a great orgasm. My husband is most dismayed with me. But I also have some serious health problems too and he honors the in sickness and in health part of our marriage vows.

    Marriage and love are more than just sex. Most men don't see it that way. I'm glad Bob is smart enough to know the difference between love and sex. One of the reasons that I still love him after 25 years.

  • jlpark profile image
    Author

    Jacqui 2 years ago from New Zealand

    Austin - I realised it seems like I'm brushing your comments off - my apologies!.

    I'm hoping that in at least my daughter's life time, that those like Pat Robertson will fade away - they are starting to sound terribly crazy with the stuff they are coming out with - completely off the wall stuff. I'm surprised people even believe them.

    If we had the powers that Pat and his friends seem to think we have - tsunamis, climate change, droughts, floods, global financial crisis (Oh...honey...we usually have more disposable income, Marriage equality might help get us out of crisis!).

    Thanks for helping to explain what I meant with the "choose to be gay then" thing.

    We're getting there, one person at a time.

  • jlpark profile image
    Author

    Jacqui 2 years ago from New Zealand

    Thanks for that, Austin. Explains it well.

    William - you see, so did I - on girls. Not boys. I am female.

    When you asked yourself if you were 'like that." and came up with 'no, never been attracted to men" - you didn't choose that did you? So WHY do you think that gay people have a choice? What makes you think that we don't have it the same as you, but that we have never been attracted to the opposite gender?

    William, would you consider a person who was single and stated they were heterosexual, as not knowing who they were attracted to? If you were single, would you not know whether you were heterosexual or homosexual (or bisexual, or asexual for that matter)? Why do you think it is different for those of us who aren't heterosexual?

    You KNOW who you are attracted to, regardless of whether you are with someone in a relationship, or single.

    Are you straight if you don't love anyone? Yes. So those single gay guys and girls are gay even if they aren't in love at the present minute.

    I realise these questions may seem harsh, but I don't mean them this way - I mean them in a gentle, "well, why would we be any different in the way we love (aside from gender)? We're human." kinda way.

    Not being able to see the possiblity, doesn't mean that the possibility doesn't exist.

    So, William, if you didn't choose to be straight, why assume we choose to be gay? I've never been attracted to men, it's not something I chose, it's not something I can change, but it's not something I'm ashamed of either. So why assume we choose but you as straight people don't?

  • William Dugat profile image

    William Dugat 2 years ago from Lufkin, Texas

    As a young child, around 5 or 6, I began having little "crushes" on the other girls in my school. At that point it was no choice. When i got a little older, and I first heard of homosexuality, I said to myself, "I'm not like that right?" And I answered my own question with "no of course... I've never been attracted to men." That was around 9-10 if I remember correctly. I was pointing earlier to the members of the gay community who are single. How can they be gay if they don't love anyone? I just can't see that being a possibility. Also, I do agree with you on one thing. The sarcasm and rudeness does no good. All it does is anger the person you are conversing with, which serves no purpose in getting someone to see your point of view. Thanks again for your kindness.

  • Austinstar profile image

    Lela 2 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

    William, she's asking if you get sexually aroused while thinking of men or thinking about women? Or both?

    Would you believe that some people never get sexually aroused, and some people are constantly aroused?

    Sexual attraction isn't even the determining factor in long term relationships.

    I've known men that could care less about sex and then there are some that seem to think that everything in life is about their penis.

    Everybody is different. Women are their own judge of what they like also (sexually).

    Your sexual fantasies can determine your sexual orientation. Which sex turns you on? Physically?

    Now which sex do you prefer to be with? Men or women?

    Which sex do you want to have a really deep and meaningful life with? When these two things are the same, then you know. And no, it isn't a matter of "choosing". It's a matter of listening to yourself and your own feelings.

    The prison thing is a whole different ball game. Men have more sex in prison than women do as prisoners anyway. And yes. It's more about power than sex in those cases.

  • jlpark profile image
    Author

    Jacqui 2 years ago from New Zealand

    Austin - I know what you mean. I think it's fear based. I was just talking about this with a religious friend today - the last person I would want marrying me to my wife would be someone who didn't think that my marriage was equal to that of theirs - I'd never ask a pastor to marry me, unless they offered. I'd never sue either.

    We did come the conclusion though that there are some very vocal religious people (the loudest are often the most wrong on their own religion), and some very vocal LGBT in the wrong areas (some of whom will look for anything to cause an issue) - both of these cause their respective groups no end of problems - they give their groups a bad name - and it's usually the "vocal religious" that view the entirety of the LGBT community in the light they think of the "vocal LGBT" group in, and vice versa....they ruin it for everyone really in either camp! Hopefully the term will get through to some people - it's marriage equality...one day.

    William - You're welcome. I don't find it helpful to be nasty or sarcastic when trying to understand where someone is coming from, and help them to understand this side.

    What about those who have partners? I am a married woman, to a woman. I've been in a relationship with a male in my past, however this did not work out as I was not attracted to him in any other way other than as a friend - I was not romantically nor sexually attracted to him in anyway (took me a bit to figure that out though...I was a seriously shy, angsty teenager who was questioning her sexuality - thankfully he and I are still friends). I have not been abused sexually or otherwise.

    I love a woman, I am in love with a woman, and I also make love with a woman. So I don't understand your theory around according to the "love" idea that sexual orientation doesn't exist. JUst because it is not heterosexual love does not make it not love, nor does it make it any lesser type of love. Your love of a woman (I'm assuming you are a straight male) is no better nor lesser than my love of my wife.

    Prison sex/orientation is a completely different kettle of fish - a LOT Of that is about power. NOT orientation. It is POSSIBLY a choice to those people. But just because they may choose to partake in it, does not mean that those of us *read MOST of us* who haven't been in prison are choosing to be gay.

    How did you know you were straight, when you hadn't been in a relationship with a girl/woman? If I can, I'll take a guess - you just knew as a young boy chasing girls around the playground,....you annoyed them cause you felt you had some need to do that (for some reason, little boys annoy the girls they like...it's weird, but it happens all the time with kids!). As you aged, you wanted to hold hands with the girl you admired from afar. Even older now, and you were romatically and probably sexually attracted to a (to you anyway) hot woman close to your own age.

    You didn't have to think about it, you just were.

    It's the same for us. Some know as children but don't have the words for it (Now, thats changing - there are more children able to explain themselves - check out Amelia on Huffington Post - her gay son is 10). Others, like myself, knew they were different, but couldn't quite figure out why until they were a little older (and when they look back, like me, are surprised no one else figured it out first.....hahaha) - I didn't understand why my friends were so broken up about being dumped by a boyfriend, I couldn't understand the big deal about boys...but girls...I was heartbroken.

    William - I'd also like to thank you for your willingness to answer candidly about yr reasons for thinking it's a choice. And willingness to discuss this in a civilised manner. You didn't answer one thing though - Tell me when you consciously choose to be straight? How long did you consider being gay for? And, can you make yourself attracted to the same sex this minute, just for a moment? Yes? No?

    Thanks again.

  • William Dugat profile image

    William Dugat 2 years ago from Lufkin, Texas

    Seriously I really appreciate how civilized you manage to make this. Most people bring sarcasm into it and act like jerks! If you would like me to explain how it is a choice to be gay, I'd be glad to. First, there is no scientific proof of being born gay. All experiments to find that have failed. Second, the concept of "loving who you love" simply can't work in my opinion. For example, how can a man decide he's gay and only likes men if he has no partner? Who is to say a gay man couldn't fall in love with a woman and a straight man with another man? According to the "love" idea, sexual orientation does not exist. Another example... Straight men go into prison straight and turn gay while in jail. When they come out (if they do) they turn straight again. I just don't see how that is not a choice. I can understand if someone has had emotional trauma and turns gay. My sisters were friends with a gay guy once and he was only gay because he was sexually abused on a daily basis by his father. That I will allow to pass, as I can see how serious emotional trauma can drive someone to do something like become gay. Again, I appreciate your kindness and understanding on the matter.

  • Austinstar profile image

    Lela 2 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

    I'm still shaking my head over the number of people that still think it's ok to be stupid about discrimination. Of any kind. Really? This new law is about freedom, not about forcing religious people to do things against their beliefs. No one is forcing anyone to get married or bake cakes or stop being ignorant. It is simply entitling humans the freedom of choice in their lives to choose to be legally recognized as members of the human race.

    It's called marriage eqality, not same sex marriage law. If only people could get the terms right in thair heads.

  • jlpark profile image
    Author

    Jacqui 2 years ago from New Zealand

    William. Firstly, thank you for your comment, and your compliments. I do however have to make comment on parts of your comment or I would be remiss in ignoring them.

    "No-one is truly gay, they choose to be gay." - Unless you mean "gay" as in "happy", I'd like to know how you come to this conclusion? When did you choose to be straight, because to make such a statement means you must have considered a life of gayness prior to deciding that you were straight. If it's a choice, as you say it is, a test for you is - choose to be attracted to men, just for a moment....how did that work for you? It didn't? IF you can't make that choice, then why assume gay people do? Most of us have never experienced attraction to the opposite sex, regardless of any attempts to try and fit the societal expectations. Some have, but most don't remember feeling any other way.

    The 'idea' of gay - why term it an idea? Gay people have been around since the time of the Romans, since the beginning of time (since most likely just after Adam and Eve if you believe in Creationism....though, Adam and Eve weren't married so please don't use that example as why we shouldn't marry).

    I think you'll find (and to be honest, I'm not American, nor do I live in America, so I could be off slightly on the specifics of the law) that what is happening is that the 'non-discrimination' clauses of many laws are being held to account. Take the Cake Saga for instance - if a business is open to the public to bake cakes for the masses, but would provide a service to an adulterous straight couple, but not a monogomous gay couple...it's discrimination. It's the same cake, to a couple - you are not performing the ceremony, you are not condoning the ceremony - you are providing cake.

    Think about it like this - if service was denied to an interacial couple for the same reason - it would be illegal, regardless of the fact that it would be biblically reasoned (much like a lot of the arguments against interacial marriage were). But it is discrimination. If you are open to the public - this includes ALL the public in their wonderous differences

    Take for example a gay or gay-friendly cake store denying service to pastor, or church, or Christian- would you have an issue with this?? Would you see it as discrimination? No??? I think you'll find you do think it's discrimination. SO why is it okay to deny it to two people just wanting some cake who happen to be gay? Our money is JUST as good as anyone elses (and we usually have a bit more to throw around - Dual Income, No Kids...(except those of us with children...just as broke as everyone else!!!)). (Please note the cake store who denied the person who wanted "I hate gays" or some such on their cake did NOT deny them cake, but declined to put a hateful message on it - saying the person could do that themselves should they wish (it came under a hate crime law instead - they did not deny them cake))

    Also - what is Christian about hatred? Jesus was not about hatred, he was not about discrimination, nor was he about judging thy neighbour. He was about loving thy neighbour.

    Religious freedom - you are still entitled to practice your religion as you wish. But, cherry picking it to suit your own (you being anyone) biases and/or hatred isn't what the law is about - if you are claiming 'religious freedom' but not denying service to adulterers, unmarried mothers, non-virginal brides, divorcees, then its not religious freedom, but merely hiding hatred behind the guise of religion.

    No one is saying you have to agree with homosexuality - but disagreeing with it, isn't going to make it go away. No one is denying your right to your beliefs. But if you work in an area where you are serving the public - then you have to do this legally.

    I'm a nurse - can you imagine if I decided not to treat / work with people who disagreed with me? Heck, I will work with/treat anyone because I am in the profession to serve the ill and injured public - be they Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, vehemently anti-gay, paedophiles, murderers, rapists, domestic violence perpetrators, gang members, people who voted against me having equality, who would rather see me buried than married etc, who would have our child removed from me and my wife merely because we are gay. I cannot discriminate against these people, because I am in the business of serving their needs in health - regardless of who they are.

    See what I mean? I doubt they are making it illegal - it's already illegal - they're just calling them on it. But hey, I can't make you change your mind, I just appreciate the visit and your comments, and your willingness to share your opinions - you are very much entitled to them, as I am to mine. Thanks for having this conversation.

  • William Dugat profile image

    William Dugat 2 years ago from Lufkin, Texas

    Very well written. Nicely done. I appreciate you trying to keep the comments in a civil manner. I can't seem to grasp why we focus so much on the marriage thing. I am against the whole idea of "gay." I see it as an impossibility. No one is truly gay, they choose to be gay. I think anti-gay activists should focus more on the general idea of "gay," not just the idea of marriage. Although the new gay marriage law will compromise religious freedoms. The gay community will never be happy. They will continue to push for more and more. They are currently trying to make it illegal for Christian business owners to deny them service. That's what most people ignore. This WILL compromise religious freedoms.

  • Austinstar profile image

    Lela 2 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

    kbd - just yesterday, I saw a report on how Pat Robertson advised a family not to associate with their "Wiccan" neighbors because it would harm the children and the family.

    Until these old imbecilic people pass away, we are going to have to continue to deal with nonsensical discrimination and yes, hatred, of those that think "differently".

    We probably won't live to see it ourselves, but someday, this kind of attitude toward others will eventually disappear. At least that is a dream many of us individual humans have.

  • jlpark profile image
    Author

    Jacqui 2 years ago from New Zealand

    kbdressman - Thanks for your visit! I'm glad you liked that line - I'd be more than happy if thats what is taught, but like I said - not telling anyone how to raise their kids! Its how we will be raising our daughter though.

    I agree, I think that most of the rest of the 'issues' would melt away.

  • kbdressman profile image

    kbdressman 2 years ago from Harlem, New York

    My favorite line in this hub is, " I'd be happier if you taught them [your children] to love thy neighbour regardless of who they are." That, is something everyone should be able to get behind, no matter which side of the issue they are on. And, if everyone would get behind that idea, most of the rest of the "issues" would melt away!

  • jlpark profile image
    Author

    Jacqui 2 years ago from New Zealand

    Austin - Whew...I was a little concerned there that I may have affected your marriage to Bob when I got married (for those who can't figure it out - sarcasm...)

    Wavie - thank you! I am off to check out your hubs. Thanks for your comment and visit!

  • Wavie profile image

    Wavie 2 years ago

    I love this hub so much! I thought it was beautiful and well done! If you feel like it you could check out my hub on the subject, I'd love to know what you think about it!

  • Austinstar profile image

    Lela 2 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

    Funny thing, your same sex marriage is STILL not affecting my marriage! I go on about my life just like I'm in charge of it.

  • jlpark profile image
    Author

    Jacqui 2 years ago from New Zealand

    Akriti - thank you for visiting, voting up, and your comment!

  • Akriti Mattu profile image

    Akriti Mattu 2 years ago from Shimla, India

    Hats off for writing this post :-)

    Voted up.

  • jlpark profile image
    Author

    Jacqui 2 years ago from New Zealand

    Damn...I'd typed a whole answer and it disappeared.

    I don't mind you asking - I decided a long time ago that if people had questions about my orientation, or how my family came to be - I'd answer - because if sharing my journey helps someone else's journey be less hard - I'm a happy girl.

    As you'd be aware, we need 'assistance' to conceive. There are several options, but we chose the donor option. In NZ, the law states that any donor must be contactable by those children conceived with their donation (egg or sperm) when they are aged 18, and wish to do so. Whether the donor has input into the lives of the children is up to the type of donor. Ours does not wish to have input, which we are fine with but is more than happy to be contacted when she's 18.

    Her birth certificate states Mother as me (as I carried her), and "other parent" as my wife. The donor is listed in files with the fertility clinic, and the Register of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Fert clinic informs them I think) but not on her birth cert. This goes for straight couples who use donor (either) as well - though they are more than welcome to use Father as that hasn't been replaced. Its much like an inter-family adoption without being adopted - my wife may not have DNA relation to our daughter, but she is emotionally, physically, legally and all other ways - our daughters Mama.

    I am thinking about a hub on a similar topic, as most people I know don't know many if any gay couples with kids who were conceived within the relationship. Perhaps I've provided too much info but better to have too much than not enough. We will be telling her when she is old enough, but she's only just 1, so not yet.

    Hopefully that helps.

  • Joseph O Polanco profile image

    Joseph O Polanco 2 years ago

    "Mama to our daughter"

    You've piqued my curiosity. If you don't mind my asking, how the heck did that happen? :)

  • jlpark profile image
    Author

    Jacqui 2 years ago from New Zealand

    You admit that people under age can already get married - so gay marriage wouldn't have any more effect than allowing it to happen with patently consent - as it already does for straight marriages where one is under consenting age. so I'm gathering the only underage or paedophilic relationships that you don't want to get married are gay - much like you don't want gay adults to marry either. I suppose at least you are consistent. Straight but adult-minor mixed relationships can already marry so I'm not sure what your issue is with it being extended to the SS.

    My issue with underage kids gettin married is regardless of the gender mix - it disturbs me unless they are only a year or so under the age of consent - 16-17 ish (it's 16 here so 15) - that parents can marry their children off like that - be they to a man or a woman. I guess like it disturbs you that gays can marry.

    Your assertion that they are 'gay' because they have male victims is an assumption on your part. They have male victims, but their attraction is to the power over the child - not the gender (usually). The 'hence, gay' is your words or the journals? (On a phone - will read it later) Many many victims are female - so....are we just going to over look the 'straight' offending?

    You seem to have only got an issue with gay people being the offender - I wonder what your thoughts on Josh Duggar and his offending are. And he's so far from the only one.

    Joseph - thanks for answering the original question - I think. I sincerely hope those three things don't affect you personally because that would be awful. Not sure how my marriage affected you - but from if you have personally experienced ill effects since I married my partner of now 11yrs, 6yrs ago - my apologies. Not going to divorce the love of my life, Mama to our daughter, but I extend my apologies if my happiness harmed you in anyway.

    Can we quit the paedo stuff now? I'll agree to disagree if you can. I have a problem with Paedos regardless of the gender of their victim.

  • Joseph O Polanco profile image

    Joseph O Polanco 2 years ago

    "I think you might find that people are able to marry aged 12 and over [] because they can't consent for themselves legally."

    Irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that they CAN get married. So what happens when, thanks to the trail you and yours have blazed in legalizing gay marriage, gays decide they want to marry their young gay lovers?

    "Implying that paedo's are ONLY gay is either ignorant on your part, or deliberately obstructive."

    Read "Sexual abuse of boys: definition, prevalence, correlates, sequelae, and management" released by The Journal of American Medical Association. It demonstrates that over 90% of perpetrators are male, hence, gay.

    "exactly how does my SS marriage affect yours personally?"

    It affects me as much as child sex trafficking, the Ebola pandemic or global terrorism affects me ...

  • jlpark profile image
    Author

    Jacqui 2 years ago from New Zealand

    Joseph.

    These are likely the states that allow marriage between first cousins as well?

    I think you might find that people are able to marry aged 12 and over - if under 18, with PARENTAL or JUDICIAL consent - because they can't consent for themselves legally.

    Your second part - two things -1 - paedo's are attracted to the power over children, and usually identify as heterosexual in their adult relationships (not all but many - yes, there are gay paedos - I'm not saying there aren't), regardless of the gender of their victim. Implying that paedo's are ONLY gay is either ignorant on your part, or deliberately obstructive.

    There may be some relationships with older (yet still under the age of consent) minors that are loving and consentual (as in not forced) - but these are usually not referred to as Paedos - more as 'statutory rape" if anyone was to charge anyone. But this is EXACTLY the same in heterosexual relationships - and hey, like you said - they can already get married - so it wasn't gay marriage.

    But most relationships considered paedophillic are with PRE-PUBESCENT children - eg not teenagers - so 12/13 and under, non developed children. This is where I find your inference offensive - not only to gay people, but to those children who are victims of this horrific crime.

    This hub was NOT about paedo's, nor do paedo's actually have anything to do with how my marriage (or anyone else's marriage for that matter) affects another. So, whilst I have given you the respect of answering your comments, I do not wish to discuss paedo's any further. I will delete further comments that do not pertain to the question of the hub.

    Please answer the question - How does MY marriage affect YOUR MARRIAGE?. If you cannot - then please consider writing your own hub, and covering paedophilia on your own time, in your own hub. But I'm curious - exactly how does my SS marriage affect yours personally?

  • Say Yes To Life profile image

    Yoleen Lucas 2 years ago from Big Island of Hawaii

    Regarding pedophilia - what about young girls forced to marry old men???

  • Joseph O Polanco profile image

    Joseph O Polanco 2 years ago

    "Children are vulnerable and incapable of providing informed consent"

    If that's true why are children as young as 12 able to get legally married even in the US?

    "I object to several things in your comment but one part in particular - to refer to the victims of pedo's as 'their young lovers'"

    You assume that all ped0philic relationships are coerced but that simply is not true. Across the globe there are lots of gay adults who have "loving" relationships with their young lovers.

    So what happens when, thanks to the trail you and yours have blazed in legalizing gay marriage, these decide they want to get married?

  • jlpark profile image
    Author

    Jacqui 2 years ago from New Zealand

    Joseph - thank you for your visit. I'd like to discuss your comment in several ways.

    Firstly - Exactly what does paedophilia have to do with the effect my marriage has on your own marriage? That was the basis of this hub - that my marriage has no effect on your own, unless I'm marrying your wife. And, I'm married to the love of my life, so you have no worries there.

    Secondly - I'm gathering you missed the conversation in relation to consent. If you don't understand consent in this instance, I shall explain/ Children are vulnerable and incapable of providing informed consent, particularly in situations where there is a very clear imbalance of power not in their favour such as a sexual relationship with an adult.

    Therefore, even if they are co-erced into saying 'yes' to something happening to them, paedophilia is abuse due to lack of consent, and the power over the child by the adult in question.

    Homosexual adults in consensual relationships are vastly different. They are capable of consent, not in a vulnerable position, nor in a position of power over the other in the relationship. They are ADULTS.

    I object to several things in your comment but one part in particular - to refer to the victims of pedo's as 'their young lovers' is as though you don't consider the victims of pedo's as victims at all but more like equal players (eg giving consent). If this is not your intent, you could choose your words better.

    So, Joe - as paedophilia has nothing to do with my hub, I hope that's cleared this up for you. Back to the original question - how exactly does my marriage affect yours?

  • Joseph O Polanco profile image

    Joseph O Polanco 2 years ago

    Next up to claim their purported rights? Ped0philes and their young lovers ...

  • Say Yes To Life profile image

    Yoleen Lucas 2 years ago from Big Island of Hawaii

    Congratulations on your civil union, jlpark! Your marriage does not affect mine, especially since I'm not married. If I were gay, it would affect it in that there would be one less woman for me. But I'm straight, so no danger there.

    Best wishes to you both!

  • jlpark profile image
    Author

    Jacqui 3 years ago from New Zealand

    That may be so in your religion etc, but how does another couple who happen to be the same sex marrying actually affect your own marriage?

    Whether you think it's natural or not - does it actually affect your own marriage? Your marriage to an opposite gendered partner has no effect on my marriage, at all. So does my marriage have an effect on yours?

    It's natural for gay people to be attracted to the same gender, just as it is natural for heterosexuals to be attracted to the opposite gender. Forcing people who are not straight to be so is what is unnatural. No one is asking you to marry the same gender but only asking they be able to.

    My question still stands to you - does my marriage affect yours in any way?

    But thank you for your comment, and following of me...I have some questions re Islam I may ask at some point..I like to learn about different faiths.

  • SAQIB6608 profile image

    SAQIB 3 years ago from HYDERABAD PAKISTAN

    God created men and women to form couples. To form natural balance between male and female, they need to be married to each other, NATURAL EQUILIBRIUM & NATURAL EQUITY !!!

  • jlpark profile image
    Author

    Jacqui 4 years ago from New Zealand

    Please stop making personal remarks towards me in a derogatory fashion.

    I merely asked you to leave the hub alone for now - we have agreedto disagree so leaving it alone would be the next logical step.

    I have never said anything nasty about you or your opinions. Nor have I stopped you having them as you are entitled to them.

    You do not know me, my life or my story. But you see fit to make comments on me, my life, my opinions and my story.

    I'm a registered nurse, reality, and a pregnant lesbian. I know how children are made very clearly - down to the cellular level as well as the 'physical' act. Yes we needed to 'borrow' but unless it was from you - it's not really any of your business.

    I care very much about the feelings of others - can't be a nurse if I didn't. But just because I don't agree and will never agree with you doesn't mean that I'm unfeeling or selfish.

    So all I ask - leave the hub. If you feel so strongly about your opinion - you are more than welcome to write your own hub - and I assure you - I will not venture there so no threat of me disrespecting you there as you have done here.

    It's that simple.

  • RealityTalk profile image

    RealityTalk 4 years ago from Planet Earth

    I find your comment about leaving your Hub alone expected. I have lost all respect for you. You are self-centered and a model of the times. Interested in yourself and sexual pleasure and not much more. You will rationalize away anything contrary to what you want to see and vilify all who disagree with you. You are right and the world must change and see you as "normal."

    This is my last comment & I will "leave [your] Hub alone." I am done being polite with you. You have no clue what marriage means. It is between a man and a woman. Men and women make babies, not women and women. You are confused as to what sex means. You are confused as to what love means. And you are confused about nature and life itself. You care nothing about the feelings of others unless it directly effects you and or your choices in life. I pity you.

    Make a final comment about me and tell your lesbian friends and the politically correct how homophobic or ignorant or whatever helps your ego survive I am.

  • jlpark profile image
    Author

    Jacqui 4 years ago from New Zealand

    Nope we aren't going to agree.

    One thing - you said early on both here and in yr question on the answers page - lesbians/gays marrying shouldn't be called a marriage because its basically a friendship where they have sex.

    Is that not a part of any marriage? Friends having sex? But not the sole point or aim of marriage. You said it, not me

    I've had enough of this - ill agree to disagree if you'll leave my hub alone - it's taking away from my message. And I have more respect than to do that to a person.

  • RealityTalk profile image

    RealityTalk 4 years ago from Planet Earth

    I think we will just have to agree to disagree as they say. We are not going to see eye-to-eye on this subject. I am not an easy push over as the other 90% of the politically correct go-along-with-what-is-popular culture. I am swayed by logic and reason, not peer pressure.

    I do want to point out however, I never suggested Heterosexuality was any less about sex than lesbianism; I don't know how you read into what I wrote. I clearly wrote that sex is sex and love is love; neither being the same. I clearly said I see nothing wrong with heterosexual, lesbian, gay, oral, solo, or most varieties of sex. Sex is just sex. I did state that marriage is about family and identity and knowing ones parents and children; I am not a believer in communal families.

    As far as describing yourself as a second class citizen, I think that is not a fair assessment of your situation. Same-sex couples raising families have not been the historical norm, so saying you have been treated like second class citizens is a little bit of an over dramatization. You cannot compare yourselves to an African-American family being treated differently than a European-American family or a Hispanic-American family. Those families could argue being treated as second class if they were treated differently as they share more common attributes. No your family is a new familial creation with obvious differences from a traditional family. Equal treatment by law and by culture and by religion have been historically given to traditional families which you are now attempting to join by redefinition. I think it more fair to say that you are asking to be given equal treatment for what you are attempting to add to the definition of familial relationships. You are asking to join the club.

    I can only repeat and repeat that my club is defined and I prefer you create your own club which I will respect, whether you care or not. But I do not respect your joining my club. A man and a woman is the core of marriage. Many things change over time and marriage has gone through historical changes and marriage is different around the world and in varying cultures, nationalities and religions, but the core of marriage - a man marrying a woman - has always been at the center. You are asking we change the core, the basic foundational of marriage to satisfy your different taste in relationships. We are not going to agree.

  • jlpark profile image
    Author

    Jacqui 4 years ago from New Zealand

    Oh and if you think I've not read it and replied to everything - I have to work today so I haven't the time just now

  • jlpark profile image
    Author

    Jacqui 4 years ago from New Zealand

    It's about rights and always has been. If the club you join has the same rights as the club I join - all is well. The problem is that we are treated as second class citizens because we happen to be sexually and romantically attracted to the same sex.

    However, heterosexuality is as much about sex as homosexuality - so I'm not trying to redefine lesbianism - I'm saying I personally did not marry for sex - yet you say that that is all lesbianism is about.

    I don't care what it's called as long as my rights are the same as yours in the bonds of a legally committed relationship. Therein lies the problem.

    But other than the definition you had at the time of your marriage (the def of marriage has changed over time many times) - my marriage personally has nothing to do with yours. And vice versa.

    That is my point.

  • RealityTalk profile image

    RealityTalk 4 years ago from Planet Earth

    I don't want to beat a dead horse to death either, but you don't understand what I am writing. Of course I don't know you. And you don't know me. But you do miscomprehend what I write. I never wrote that I know you and or your relationship; you just interpreted it that way. When I say being a lesbian is about women having sex with women, it is. How you can deny that is beyond me, but then I am a realist unlike so many in this world. I don't know how many other ways I can explain or how many other examples I can use to make you come to reality about what a lesbian is. Apparently, you want to not only redefine marriage, you want to redefine lesbianism. Love is not sex. Sex is one way of expressing ones love. But sex is mostly a physical urge. Sexual urges were DNAed into the body to force copulation to ensure recreation. Certainly I was not in existence at the time of creation so I can not say that is so as fact, but it is logical.

    I cannot believe you cannot see that you can love another woman and not be a lesbian. I am sure you can. You can love your partner and not be a lesbian. I can love my wife and not be heterosexual. Sex, not love, IS what makes a woman a lesbian. Lesbian, gay, heterosexual, are all sexually defined labels. And just because I am a man and not a woman and not a lesbian does not make me unqualified to make that simple observation and statement and acknowledgement. Some things are just fact; as simple as that.

    When you describe your relationship with your partner you are describing love not sex. So fine, you love a woman. I hope the two of you are extremely happy. There are a lot of unhappy couples in the world. Unhappy heterosexual couples; unhappy same-sex couples. Relationships can be difficult. So many people do not know how to give; they are better at merely taking these days.

    But in your commentaries, you seem to want to gloss over the sexual attraction part of your relationship and discuss only love. You are romanticizing and confusing sexual urges and preferences with love. The two are mutually exclusive whether you chose to admit so or not.

    And please understand me, I do not mean to offend you. Some of my words may be offensive, but some topics require straight (no pun intended) forward language. I am not judging you. I am not critiquing you. I am not analyzing you. I am not telling you I know you or anything about your relationship. I am explaining my views, my opinions, and trying to respond to your commentary.

    I understand legality issues involved here. I am a lawyer. But marriage to me and to many like myself is not about what the law has attached thereto. To many of us, the law has no business messing in marriages and the definition thereof. Of course I will take advantage of tax breaks the law provides, but truthfully, our U.S. government meddles too much in many private affairs that our forefathers never intended. That is why I state that I would not vote for or against same-sex marriage legislation. It is none of the governments business.

    When I say your marriage affects mine, it does. You redefine the meaning of what marriage has meant for me. You want to invade my club. I am fine with you having all the same legal rights I have as a married heterosexual. I am not fine with you redefining my commitment to a woman to have our children. That is what is bothersome. This is my club. No different than the boy scouts. The girl scouts. A mans club. A womans club. You are different than me. I am a man coupled to a woman with the capability of birthing OUR children. You are a woman coupled with a woman, not capable of having YOUR children. This is not an offensive statement. It is a truth. Our relationships are different. And yes, there are exceptions; couples who cannot conceive, but then life always consists of exceptions. Why cannot we respect each other and be different? Why do you feel so strongly that you have to be the same? You are not. Embrace what you are and be you. In the 60s we embraced being unique; being different. Is that now passe?

    And as far as the slippery slope, that seems old hat, but it is a valid argument. History bears it out. I have read hundreds and hundreds of books pertaining to history. Please read and you will see I am not wrong. The slippery slope started with civil unions. I knew marriage was next. As a now deceased comedian once said in his act, "you give them an inch. They take a foot. After a foot they take a yard. After a yard they take a mile. Where does it end?"

    As far as your argument about consent pertaining to my adults marrying minors example. How you define consent and how you define a minor has always been a legal question. If you read history, it was not uncommon for fathers to sleep with their daughters and adults to have sex with what we define as minors unable to consent today. All one has to do is "redefine" consent and "redefine" minor and what is acceptable. No different that "redefining" marriage to include same-sex couples. Right and wrong has always been a cultural call historically.

    So please understand, I respect you and I respect your feelings and I will never try to convince you to change. But please respect my desire to retain the definition of my club. And do not try to redefine my club so you can join. Create your own club.

  • johndnathan profile image

    John D Nathan 4 years ago from Dallas, Texas. USA

    And we also have to take into account the difference between male and female. Apart from some body parts and some hormones... not much difference there.

    In fact we have the technology to swap between the two so if one of the members of a gay couple gets gender reassignment surgery all of a sudden they can legally get married to their partner. They're still the same person; they just have some different parts and a few different chemicals.

  • jlpark profile image
    Author

    Jacqui 4 years ago from New Zealand

    Thanks entropyartist. I do try not to get wound up, but the personal comments are starting to grate, I'll admit!

    I make a point of accepting every comment nasty or not because if people choose to say it - they need to live with it being public. They are also entitled to their opinion.

    Thankfully, not all think the same as each other - life would be boring. We need to disagree to learn from one another - if we all agreed we'd never learn anything.

    The thing is - I know that my marriage has nothing to do with anyone else's marriage, and that theirs has nothing to do with mine. I'm happy and secure in that knowledge.

    In answering people's comments I also learn - be it from other people's opinions whether I agree or not, or even if its just learning to re- word the same thing because I'm answering the same question! (Not necessarily this hub actually!)

    Thank you for your encouraging comments.

  • entropyartist profile image

    entropyartist 4 years ago

    This is a great hub, Park, and you are doing a wonderful job keeping a level head in the face of some very uncalled for personal attacks.

    It seems that certain people just can't accept that your marriage has absolutely nothing to do with THEIRS, they can't find a true, legal, just and logical argument, so it just gets nasty. It's taking time, but society is evolving into a more open and accepting community, for the LGBTQ community among others.

    Haters gonna hate, but love will win in the end!

    Keep fighting the good fight!

  • jlpark profile image
    Author

    Jacqui 4 years ago from New Zealand

    Firstly, you are entitled your opinions, and I hold the utmost respect for people having their right to their opinion. What is the problem is when other people's opinions decide the rights that others are entitled to - such as interacial marriages being illegal just over 50yrs ago, to same sex marriages and the rights and benefits that go along with marriage as it stands in many countries.

    I respect the fact that you would not vote on it, and your position on why. This is something that I am passionate about - I would not vote on something that uses an opinion to decide on the rights of others - but regardless of that - I respect your position.

    It is the way in which you come across - and I am guilty of it at times, as I get wound up on occasion - that I struggled with.

    I am perfectly happy being with my partner in the Civil Union we currently have. But we will be changing it to marriage on our 4th Anniversary - at the time we married, CU was all that was available to us. This year, New Zealand changed their laws, and we will be changing our certificates in a small ceremony in the registry office (because we've done the dresses and family thing!).

    Why? Several reasons. It grants us the same benefits and rights as heterosexual couples - adoption, legalities in property, Next of Kin, hospital visitation if we were overseas (NZ doesn't care who visits!), life and death decisions etc. It is easier to travel with - ever tried to explain to someone what a civil union is? Particularly in a country that doesn't recognise them? Mostly, because we are equal to our heterosexual counterparts - we pay our taxes, work our jobs, provide for our families etc, yet we are treated as second class citizens.

    I guess, my issue is more for my homosexual 'brothers and sisters' in places like the USA - to be denied the right to be by the side of your dying life long partner because the state says you can't marry, yet her/his homophobic parents who kicked him/her out at the age of 16 can come in hardly knowing the man/woman they have become and make the decisions that the person and their life long partner had talked long and hard about, in a way that the dying person would not have wanted...is cruel, and disgusting.

    This is just ONE of 1138 benefits, taxes and rights that gay people in the USA are denied, because they do not have the option. Heroes of the USA are denied the right to pass their benefits to their 30+ year spouse by the very government they worked/fought for - soldiers, astronauts, etc.

    Your argument is valid, and sound, and backs your opinion and I respect that, whether I agree or not. I also respect you as a person (even when it seems you feel you know my relationship and how I feel - when you are very very very wrong). HOWEVER, my respect for you slipped part way through your comment.

    When discussing marriage, many people find themselves using the 'slippery slope' argument. Heck, the same arguments were used when women were given the right to vote - "Next we'll be letting the hamsters vote" . Comparing same-sex marriage to marrying more than one person, siblings, children, minors, dogs, cats, goats and even toasters. AS well as being insulting in it's suggestion, all those 'items' Aside from polygamy - which is actually legal in some countries and has been for centuries - and possibly adult siblings (as that has a different reason) - aren't ever going to happen for ONE SIMPLE REASON.

    CONSENT. Children/minors cannot consent to marriage, dogs cannot consent to marriage, goats - nope, toaster - it's an inanimate object what do you think? Lack of consent makes any of this akin to RAPE.

    Siblings, adults and their grown children = one cannot rule out chronic abuse - emotional, physical, sexual - as coercion into marriage. Aside of the shallow gene pool that this also creates - so there is a medical reason also. Funnily enough, there are states in the USA where it is illegal to have a same sex marriage - but not a problem to marry your first cousin (firsts are usually almost as shallow a gene pool as immediate family).

    I also find it offensive that you feel the need to comment on my relationship merely because you don't think it should be called marriage. Do you see me commenting on the sexual nature of your marriage? No. You comment on my 'choice' of lifestyle being 'all about sex' - what exactly would you know about my relationship, unless you are in it?

    Many people think gay people are all about sex - yet it is these people who say these things who seem to think more about our sex lifes than we do. HONEY, they aren't what you think they are! (and why you'd be thinking about them...beats me).

    You mention that you and your wife have reasons for marriage that my wife and I can never match. Yet you do not provide these reasons...how can you say that I can never match them - if you do not know me, and I do not know what they are. We may have married for the very same reasons. SEX was not one of them for me, or my wife. I highly doubt you married for sex either....it just happens to be one of the benefits. So why assume we do?

    Being lesbian is being sexually, and romantically attracted to woman, as a woman. Heterosexuality is about being attracted sexually, and romantically, to a member of the opposite sex. Your sexuality is a sexually based as mine is. Yet, you are marrying a friend as well - because why marry someone who you can't stand??? I am not and never have been attracted in anyway to men - romantically, or otherwise. I do not hate them, and I have many many male straight and gay friends. I am attracted to my wife - in more ways than one - but mostly because I am romantically attracted to her - whether we have sexual relations (aside from being none of your business) isn't a defining factor in our relationship, and I feel for anyone for whom it is.

    Your last comments - Why do I care? I don't really, except for the fact we are denied civil rights that heterosexual couples are entitled to merely due to the fact they are straight - 1138 of the things.

    My self esteem is fine - I couldn't care less what you think of me, but I do take offence to comments made about my personal life etc. My motto in life is "those who matter don't mind, those who mind don't matter" and "it takes too much energy to give a sh*t what people think about me".....however my ultimate goal is this - If I can make the journey through coming out etc just that little bit easier for even just one person - I'll share my story. That is what I'm doing here - trying to make it easier for others, who don't have it like I do - a supportive family, country and wife.

    Thank you for your comments. I'm a little tired of discussing this, if you insist on making comments about me personally. But I will continue in respectful fashion.

  • RealityTalk profile image

    RealityTalk 4 years ago from Planet Earth

    First off, you are comprehending only what you want and not what I am writing. I have no problem with your choice of sexual dalliance. I can easily argue that you have a problem. A problem understanding what your sexual genitalia is meant for. As well as a problem that forces you to argue from a defensive posture as you seem to feel heterosexuals who disagree with you are wrong and out to get you.

    I cannot speak for ib_radmaster, but you have missed the point - which is obvious because you still cannot see it even when explained to you and put in front of you. Neither of us have missed the point of your Hub. Your point is nothing unique.

    I will candidly say, and quite frankly, to answer your question, your marrying another woman makes a mockery of marriage between men and women. I am not - as you may want to believe - angry or losing sleep over it - but your holding your relationship out as the same as mine is disgusting and insulting. My wife and I (I can speak for my wife as we have discussed this) entered into marriage for many reasons; reasons you and your friend cannot never match. You make a mockery of marriage and the meaning of it. You're changing its definition changes the meaning of marriage for us as well. That obviously does not bother you as - like most people - you are only concerned with yourself and your life and no one elses that is not the same as yours.

    I can also easily argue that your redefinition starts the slide down the proverbial "slippery slope." You say "love" is what defines marriage. Well, then what is to prevent multiple partners in marriage. A man can love many women and a woman can love many men. History and some religions and some cultures accept this form of relationship already. Do you find communal marriages acceptable? What about adults marrying minors? A minor can love an adult and an adult can love a minor. And those types of relationships have been accepted in many cultures historically. So what makes that any different than your choice? Many cultures throughout history have accepted marriage and sex between adults and minors. What about bestiality? History will bear out many relationships between humans and animals. So why not let a man marry a goat and a woman marry a dog? If they love each other. I have heard many women say they love their dog and their dog loves them. What about moms marrying their sons? What about daughters marrying their fathers? Their brothers? According to you, love is all that counts when it comes to marriage. I love my parents and my siblings and my children. If love is all that counts, how can you say those relationships are wrong? Marriage is a creation of society, culture and at times in history of necessity. You would revise marriage to satisfy your own sexual desires. Not love.

    You refuse to admit, but sex is what makes you want same-sex couples included in the definition of marriage. If you defined yourself as a heterosexual, we would not be discussing this matter. I find that most people are only interested in fighting battles that benefit them personally. I find it interesting that you define yourself as "gay" in your profile. I am heterosexual, but defining myself as one who loves to f**k women is not the first thing that comes to mind nor is it how I want the world to define me. I see myself as a realist and a husband and a father and a brother and a son and a good person. But you see yourself as someone who loves sex with women. Define yourself as a good partner and friend to your wife, but do not define yourself as "gay." I have to believe you are more than that. Or are you?

    I make claim no right to decide what you can do or cannot do with your sex life. If legislation was presented and I could vote as to whether women could marry women, I would not vote. It is not for me to decide what you can or cannot do in that regard. That should be your choice; I believe that. But I do have the right to my feelings and my opinions and my dislike of your choices. I look at the world through open eyes. Not politically correct, not historical, not culturally, not what I want. You cannot read that in what I write, because your eyes are half closed. You see and read what is favorable to your point of view, ego and choices.

    You say you find my saying you missed the point laughable, but I have to say I find your arguments laughable. If you would just admit that your lifestyle choice is all about sex, I might find you credible. But you romanticize lesbianism and pervert the true intent behind your choices using the word "love. As I said previously, you can love your mom, your dad, your siblings, your friends - even your best friend - but you do not have to have sex with them. Love and sex are two separate things. If you want to claim you do not have sex with your partner, than you must also admit you are not a lesbian. If you are gay, then even if you do not have sex with your partner, you want to have sex with your partner. Let's be honest, please. Lesbianism is not about a woman loving a woman; it is about a woman having - or wanting to have - sex with another woman. I have had many friends that are lesbians - good friends. But they are honest about it. Be honest.

    And think about this the next time you use the ladies room. Think about a man sharing the stall with you. The next time you go to a woman's club, think about a man telling you you must let him join. The next time you use a changing room at a clothes store, think about a man sharing the changing room with you. The next time you take a shower at the gym, think about a man sharing the shower with you. Maybe none of this would bother you, but it would bother many women.

    Civilizations decide on rights and wrongs. There are no absolutes. They are conscious choices made to appease the group and make a culture work and or survive. Cultures and societies agree on rules for different groups and activities. Same-sex is nothing new. I am 56 years old and I have been friends with lesbians and gay men since my teens; and, in my teens gays were not popular or looked on favorably as they are now and were centuries ago in many cultures. I took a lot of flack for those friendships from the same people who are now saying they always accepted gays (now that it is politically correct). Times are always changing.

    But marriage is something I entered into based on its definition at that time and how it had been defined for centuries before. I took my vows believing marriage was between a man and a woman. You are telling me you want to redefine it. For me, that changes the relationship I have prided myself being a member thereof. You are demanding a redefinition of what I vowed to commit to for the rest of my life. You are doing so without considering my feelings; only yours.

    I have already proposed to some that maybe we (heterosexuals) should create another relational institution that excludes same sex couples.

    You may be proud that you have sex with women - that is what gay pride really is. It is not merely two people in love; that kind of relationship has existed amongst friends, families for centuries. I am proud that I committed myself to a woman who bore my children and vowed to also commit herself to me and we both vowed to remain together united and related by blood and law & to have our children.

    Obviously, you cannot be happy being with your partner unless the rest of the world treats you exactly the same as heterosexual couples. Is that what you need to make you happy? You cannot be happy just being with the one you love? You have to force the rest of the world to treat you as if you and your partner were sperm and egg, p***s and v****a partners? Do you have so little self esteem that you care so much what the rest of the world thinks about you more than you yourself?

    I feel sorry for you "gay" woman. For that is all you will ever be until you realize sex is sex and the heart is the heart and friendships are friendships and all that really matters is what you think about yourself, not what others think about you.

  • jlpark profile image
    Author

    Jacqui 4 years ago from New Zealand

    Reality - I've never said that we don't have to 'borrow' to produce offspring - I acknowledge that we do - and as a gay woman in the process of making my family I am well aware of this. However, we are much like a couple who marry knowing they as a couple are infertile even as heterosexuals. If marriage was about procreation and soley about that then I'd see your problem. Yet it is not about procreation - sex, yes that is about procreation (at least it's original intent - but as I've said before humans and dolphins have sex for pleasure so it's not its sole intent anymore) but marriage - you don't need marriage to procreate. If that was the case you'd be arguing about infertile couples.

    You speak as though lesbians only do what you say - oral. Whilst I find it odd you think about lesbian intimacies - you are incorrect - not all lesbian relationships involve that - some refuse to even do that. And errr pen@tr@t1ve sex is enjoyed by many -without use of toys etc. so if you are going to define my sexual relationship as something - at least know what you are talking about (aside from it being disturbing that you think about our sex lives more than we do)

    But I find it laughable you tell me I've missed the point and agreeing with ibrad - when he and you have both missed the point entirely of the hub - how does my marriage actually affect yours?

    I'll indulge you and go along the lines of DNA relations with offspring - how does the fact that my children may not share their DNA with both their parents affect you, and your marriage?

    I'd like to know the answer to that, because I know that your marriage and whether your children are adopted or share your DNA doesn't affect my marriage in anyway.

    What is wanted is not a lesser form of marriage. What if we just took away the term marriage from everyone - made them all 'loving unions' - would that make you happier? Straight and gay loving unions?

    As long as they were equal in rights etc i don't care what it's called.

    So tell me - how does it affect your marriage the fact that I can legally marry my wife? Does it even feature? Because that was the point of my hub.

  • RealityTalk profile image

    RealityTalk 4 years ago from Planet Earth

    I agree with ib_radmasters. What you miss about same-sex relationships is that they are not the same as heterosexual relationships. You are like two dogs at the circus dressed up in human clothes. Those dogs may wear human clothes & walk on two legs, but they are not humans. I'm not suggesting lesbians are not human, so don't get angry. What I'm suggesting is you cannot make toast with two outlets and no toaster. You can argue all you like about same-sex relationships being the same as hetero, but you are wrong. There is nothing wrong in my mind with same-sex, but it is not natures intent. You can argue to the contrary all you like, but you will still be wrong. You will always have to borrow from heteros to have children. If the world consisted of just same-sex relationships & no borrowing, the human race would die out. Heterosexual sexual relationships would do just fine without same sex. Contrary to the angry lesbian, I do not care if you l@@k each others genitals. And that IS what a lesbian is all about whether you chose to face up to it or not. I see nothing wrong with that. Sex is sex. But as all humans do, they romanticize the basest of human urges. I love my mother, my father, my siblings, my children and many friends, but I don't have sex with them.

    No, you are incorrect and apparently fixated on "human property." I agree no man or woman "belongs" to anyone else - marriage or no marriage - law or no law. Everyone "should" be equal no matter wealth, social status, sex, whatever. The world has & does argue otherwise. So does that make inequality correct? Men & women were made to have sex with each other to procreate, yet women have sex with other women, does that defeat the purpose of heterosexual relations? No.

    What you fail to see - or admit - is a toaster is a toaster ... an outlet is an outlet ... it takes sperm to fertilize an egg ... a father & a mother are the creators of offspring ... and given a choice, most children want to know their mother AND FATHER. And marriage is about a mother, father and child and knowing where each came from. If you want to live with a woman that is your choice ... not mine, and I don't care. You get defensive about your choices, but infer I cannot be defensive about mine. You defend your choice to l&&k a woman. I defend my choice to f&&k a woman. The fact is my choice was given a meaning and purpose by nature. Yours was not. You do offend the meaning of marriage. And I have as much right to defend the true meaning of marriage as you have to defend your right to have sex with women. Equal rights do not just extend to lesbians. Heterosexuals created marriage, not lesbians.

    I suggest instead of trying to be like me, why don't you try to be like you. Call your same-sex relationship a union, a love connection, whatever. But leave marriage to us. I will never force myself into the girl scouts. Yet you see a need to force yourself into my club. Some clubs are exclusive.

  • jlpark profile image
    Author

    Jacqui 4 years ago from New Zealand

    Thanks Au Fait!

    My only problem with all partnerships being unions and marriage being a church thing is that you will always have the 'lesser' version in people's eyes. Particularly with the connotation of marriage being the better of the two already without it being a solely religious thing.

    Different but equal isn't actually equal. I do understand and value your point it's just unfortunate that people don't all think like you!

    Thank you for visiting an sharing your thoughts!

  • Au fait profile image

    C E Clark 4 years ago from North Texas

    Personally, I think 'marriage' is a religious term. While I am a Christian and I believe I have a close relationship with Christ, I do not think He needs my help in judging other people, especially when I am myself imperfect and therefore unqualified for the job.

    Anyway, I think all partnerships should be considered civil unions by the government, and legally in general. If any couple or group can find a church that will bestow the word 'marriage' on their partnership, that's fine with me, but legally it should remain a civil union no matter who the partners are or what sex they happen to be. The word marriage seems to be a very emotional word for a lot of people and so I think getting that word out of the equation might solve some problems.

    I don't see how anyone else's lifestyle is going to affect mine to any large degree. I wouldn't want someone telling me how I MUST live my life and I think it makes sense to let other people live their lives their way too, so long as no one is being harmed.

    The truth is that people who smoke and people who do drugs and drive drunk/high affect my life and whether I even have a life or a healthy life, far more than people of the same sex getting married. In fact there are a great many things other than homosexuality that have a decided negative effect on my life and everyone else's life, so why don't people turn their attention and energy to something that desperately needs change and harms people? There are so many to choose from . . .

    Voted up, interesting, and will share.

  • johndnathan profile image

    John D Nathan 4 years ago from Dallas, Texas. USA

    And in all this we still must go back to what a marriage certificate is in the eyes of the law; a legal contract between two people. The church cannot legally marry two people without the marriage license, and once they get the marriage license according to the state they're already married so the church is just doing a little ceremony to commemorate that.

    Or if you don't want to get married in a church you can go down to the courthouse and have a judge marry you... once you get the marriage license of course.

  • Cantuhearmescream profile image

    Cat 4 years ago from New York

    I've said it before "I don't know how I am affected by who's sitting at the dinner table at my neighbors house?"... doesn't seem to make any sense and I'm just not sure why people feel the need to stand up against it all the time. Honestly... as unfortunate as it is... you can't avoid arguing religion because most people with the "problem" want to drag religion into the argument, again, I don't understand. I couldn't agree with you more, I live how I live and I don't see how others would have an issue with what I do as I don't have an issue with how others live, assuming they aren't hurting anyone in the process. ... and you should answer back! They shouldn't walk away feeling as if they've won, though many are ignorant and will see it only their way regardless of how legitimate the opposing side. Just keep going girl and I wish I could end it all.

    Cat

  • jlpark profile image
    Author

    Jacqui 4 years ago from New Zealand

    Cat

    Thanks for your beautiful words. I agree with you in that there shouldn't be an issue - it's really simple - if you don't like same sex marriage, don't get same sex married cause that's the only way it will affect you personally.

    I can't say I don't argue religion - cause I do. I do respect ones right to a faith and to express that faith. I respect the opinions of those with and without faith. But it is theirs not mine - I do not ask they live to my standards, and I do not appreciate being forced to live by someone else's faiths standards - merely because my sexuality makes them uncomfortable.

    If people try to force religion on me - I've studied the chapters of the six apparently anti homo verses, their history and context. So ill answer back.

    But I do try not too!

    Thanks for your visit!

  • Cantuhearmescream profile image

    Cat 4 years ago from New York

    Jax,

    You would be the perfect spokeswoman for same-sex love, that's what I'll call it and I'm still trying to figure out what the problem is.We all have love for the same sex, so when 2 people choose to spend their lives together, I don't know what the big fuss has to be about... there shouldn't be a spokesperson... it shouldn't be a fight. How many opposite-sex, damaging relationships are there out there, with abuse, neglect, infidelity? Yet, we want to worry about something that might be perfectly healthy and wonderful? I refuse to talk about religion here, because people are ignorant and just want to fight about it. I don't really see what one has to do with the other... but I do defend this and I get yelled at every time... let 'em keep yelling! Hopefully, we'll be louder one day :D

    This is beautiful!

    Cat

  • profile image

    newenglandsun 4 years ago

    Well that's the whole point. It would be up to the people in a relationship to ultimately decide if they were married or not, who the fuck cares who tries to claim otherwise.

  • jlpark profile image
    Author

    Jacqui 4 years ago from New Zealand

    Thanks newenglandsun - might have a look if I'm in the mood. The lack of knowledge and hatred on that page don't make it for much of a read.

    I don't think that still having two different 'types' of marriages would work - one would always be claimed to be 'better' than the other rather than equal. But I do see what you mean.

  • profile image

    newenglandsun 4 years ago

    jlpark,

    Judah's Daughter left a message for you on BLACKANDGOLDJACKASS's hub.

    Any way, I personally think that marriage should be taken away from the power of the government to dictate. Thus, all these "marriages" would actually be civil unions instead. Thus leaving marriage into the hands of religion. Meaning any one can declare themselves married and the government can grant civil benefits based on the standards of a civil union instead.

  • jlpark profile image
    Author

    Jacqui 4 years ago from New Zealand

    Hi there rgarnett - Thanks for your comments.

    I wrote about SS marriage because even though I do not live in the States where it is being debated as we speak, my own country is debating it - whilst it's very likely to go through here, we are getting a lot of the same arguments against it. I have a civil union to my same sex wife, because currently that is all we are allowed. But, we've always said "wife" even though legally we are CU Partners (doesn't that sound sexy....not!), and my friends and family have always called our celebration of a union a wedding as have we.

    Your daughter is definitely not at a disadvantage (for examples see my Teenagers of SameSex Parents Developing Normally hub!) - she has the advantage of two loving parents who would do anything for her, die for her, and wouldn't kick her out of the house if she was straight! But you are right in a way about being disadvantaged by having two mothers who are discriminated against.

    No worries - I write about what affects me, and what makes my blood boil so you'll see more in the next while I'm sure!

    Re: Troll - maybe, I think it's a fixation really. This is not the only hub I've seen the same argument on....no more of mine, but.....hey, each to there on.

  • rgarnett profile image

    Rachael Fields 4 years ago from KC, MO

    Well, looks like you have a troll attached to this hub. Sucks! I think your hub was awesome! Of course, my own lesbian partnership, hopefully someday marriage, is the example of the type of relationship you write about. I know my daughter is not at a disadvantage by having two mothers, she's at a disadvantage by having two mothers who are discriminated against! Thanks for the hub!