ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

What Can We Do About This Gay Marriage Thing?

Updated on October 27, 2012

What is Loving vs. Virginia?

Time changes many things. Attitudes and prejudices change with time. They change for individuals and they change for societies.

If you do not know what the famous lawsuit Loving vs. Virginia is, check it out at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia .

In 1958, Mr Loving, a white man married Mrs. Loving, a black woman. In Virginia, in 1958, this was illegal, a crime. They were arrested. Does this sound ridiculous to you in 2012? I am sure no one was laughing in 1958. In 1967, it took a lawsuit appealed to The United States Supreme Court to allow this couple to enjoy the bliss of marriage.

Today we have a same sex couple that want to marry. Many people, most people think this is wrong. In 1958, most people thought that Mr. and Mrs. Loving should not marry. Does that mean that "most people" are right? I believe that, just as we look back to 1958 and ask ourself,"What were we thinking?", we will do the same thing in forty years.

Forty years from now, someone's gay son will bring home his boyfriend and announce that they are getting married soon. It will be a joyful occasion.

Today if you have a gay son or daughter, there is no definition to their relationship. Their parents and friends do not really know what their relationship is. If you have a straight son or daughter, you can plainly see how they feel about the person they love. If your straight son or daughter is living with someone that they have chosen not to marry, you know what that means. If your straight son or daughter marries that person, you know what that means. It is their decision. That decision announces to the world how they feel about each other.

If your son or daughter is gay, the law does not allow them to announce to the world how they feel. Their parents and their friends and their priest does not really know how your gay son feels. You don't know if their "significant other" is really significant enough to marry because our current laws don't allow your gay son or daughter to express their intentions.

The closet door is open and will continue to be more open. Do parents still "disown" their kids when they come out of the closet like they did ten and twenty years ago? If so, the parents need therapy. Don't you agree? How could anyone quit loving their kids? They are you. Whether it is environment or heredity, your children are part of you. Would you quit loving your white son because he loves a black woman? In 1958, maybe you would. I hope not but maybe your desire to conform with the the current social morays and customs would have overridden twenty years of loving your son or daughter.

It is not 1958. It is not 1858. It is 2012, the twenty first century. It is time that our laws catch up with our beliefs. Do you believe it is wrong or immoral to love a person of the same sex as you? It is not for me but I certainly am not going to quit loving my son or daughter because it is for them. I don't want my son or daughter to spend their live "living with'" their significant other that should be their loving spouse.

Your state lawmakers can not read your mind. Write them a letter. Ask your friends to contact your state senators and congressmen.

When you mention Loving vs. Virginia and Rosa Parks and sit in demonstrations at the Greyhound diner in Greensboro, young people don't even know what you are talking about. The people that were there when it happen certainly know what it was about. It was wrong. It was the law. The law said it was right but it was wrong. Today the law says your gay son can not marry. That is wrong. It is obviously wrong. This is not a religious issue. It is a legal issue. I don't care what the pope or the chairman of the Southern Baptist Convention thinks, I care what the person that makes my state laws thinks. You should also.

In forty years, attitudes about gay people will be the same story as race prejudice is today. Do we have to wait forty years? Let's get started changing these laws now.

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • ib radmasters profile image

      ib radmasters 4 years ago from Southern California

      Ron

      Why did I go through the trouble of answering your reply.

      and G, don't hide behind being a guest.

      Really, love is love

      Then how about the people that want to marry their dog, or other pet.

      same sex and heterosexual are not equal by definition.

      It is basic biology.

      Which is more important

      Liberty or Equality?

    • profile image

      4 years ago

      I agree completely, Ron. Love is love. Equality for all!

    • ib radmasters profile image

      ib radmasters 5 years ago from Southern California

      You say you don't think race is a reasonable comparison to gender. Let's see. There was a time in history when a certain gender was not allowed to vote. A certain gender is still discriminated against in the workplace. Gender is a discriminated group. Gay people are discriminated against. It is comparing apples to apples and it is wrong. It is wrong.

      ib--------------

      My context was gender for marriage.

      A person can love his dog or cat, but we don't let them get married. We don't let family members intermarry. We don't let people marry children, and we don't let people have more than one wife or husband. So why should we allow gays to marry.

      Other than the love part, which can also be the same love for an animal, where is the comparison to traditional marriage.

      There are many reasons for having two genders, and none of which are satisfied by same sex marriages.

      ================

      I don't understand your comment about polygamy.

      ib--------------

      We don't allow polygamy, so why should we allow same sex marriage?

      --------------------------

      Your comment that same sex marriage does not solve the isses also did not make much sense. The purpose of marriage is not to solve issues. The purpose of marriage is for two people that love each other to declare this love for everyone to see.

      ib--------

      That is not the arguments that were made in trying to overturn proposition 8 in CA. Those arguments were made on the difference between civil unions and marriage as applied to rights.

      -----------------

      When a straight couple wants to get married and declare their love for all the world to see, the law does not prevent this. If they choose not to marry ,it is their choice. You are correct. People that choose not to marry should not marry. The ones that do choose to marry should not be prohibited by state laws.

      ib--------

      You missed the point.

      Marriage was made for two gender human unions.

      ----------------------------

      You commented that the only reason that gays want to marry is to validate their lifestyle. How do you know why gays want to marry? Did a gay person express that thought to you? Did you just make that up?

      ib-----------

      Then why do gays not accept civil unions?

      --------------------

      Why do straight couples want to marry? Is it to validate their lifestyle? If you are married, did you marry to validate your lifestyle?

      ib--------

      Traditional marriage doesn't have to validate because it is the norm for two gender marriages.

      --------------

      I think people marry to announce to the world that," This is the one person that I love. We are one. I will forsake all others for this person and this person will forsake all others for me." Only marriage makes that announcement. Only marriage is that commintment. Everything else is something else.

      ib---------------

      Marriage is not a constitutional right, it is licensed by the state. Actually, I don't think the state should have anything to say about marriage. It shouldn't be a tax status or make any difference for the government. However, the government has taken religion out of marriage. They use it to divorce the people, because they have changed the religious bonds of matrimony to a non religious level. Religions don't favor divorce, they think of marriage as a life long bond only broken by death, or mental illness.

      --------------------------

      My article is not about people that are not married. We call those people friends where I come from. They are also treated like friends at funerals and hospitials and courthouses.

      ib-----

      I have no idea what you are talking about.

      ------------------

      I certainly did not understand the comment about the chicken wearing a tuxedo.

      ib----

      Read the context...

      -------------

      You commented that fifty percent of people that get married, get divorced. What does this have to do with whether or not gay people should have the right to marry whomever they love?

      ib---------

      Traditional marriage is no longer life long, and it no longer represents love. Gay people don't have the other attributes for marriage. Divorce courts do a pathetic job of dissolution for traditional marriage, and they have no case law or laws to apply to gay marriage dissolution.

      So it is another reason why it doesn't make sense to claim that same sex people should be married.

      ----------------

      Your last comment was that gay marriage can never be normalized. The point of my article was that same sex marriage will be normal in fifty years. You are probably not old enough to remember 1958 when my friends and I went into a resturant but my black friend,Rosby was not allowed to come into the resturant and drink a Coke. You are probably not old enough to remember "white only" water fountains at the Dairy Queen. You probably have never seen "colored" restrooms in the courthouse. You probably don't remember when a person in a wheelchair could not get into many buildings. You probably think Henry Ford invented handicap parking. None of this seems normal today. It was not long ago that this was NORMAL and legal. These realities were not long ago. They were wrong then and they are wrong now. What were we thinking?

      ib--------------

      This was a race issue on the blacks, and not a gender issue. The women not voting was not a gender issue but an issue that women were chattel to their men. And in foreign cultures the same is true today. It is not the same sex marriage issue because men and women can do the same thing as far as voting is concerned. Cast a ballot.

      But same sex cannot even consummate a traditional marriage. There was a time where a marriage could be annulled if the parties didn't consummate the marriage. Marriage was also to procreate and to have children born in wedlock. This prevented the status of bastards for the children. Same sex, cannot procreate, they cannot have sexual intercourse, and these are physical attributes that define marriage. The whole biology of humans is based on the difference between the two genders. How can you call something normal if it is different than the basic biology that defines it. What are you thinking today? Are you thinking, gay people should not be gay? They are gay. They are someone's son or daughter. They are citizens. They pay taxes and they vote. They love someone. If you son or daughter wanted to marry would you want them to be able to marry the person they love or would it be better that the government tells them who they can marry? I think everyone should be able to choose who they love and who they marry. Do you think some people need the government to tell them who to marry? Attitudes will changes. Social customs will change. Laws will change. The sooner it happens, the better for all of us. Don't you agree?

      ib----------

      I disagree completely. The liberal view of changing laws is why this country is on a down slide socially.

      These laws are creating new problems, and not solving any problems.

      Please reread my solution.

      The most important aspect of gay marriages is that it doesn't solve the issues. Many people want to have a loving relationship with another person but that doesn't mean that they want to get married. It is the same whether the couple is homo, or hetero.

      For these people, gay marriage doesn't help them. A more universal solution would be to make personal contracts between any two people that give them whatever rights they want, including those implied by marriage.

      That contract would be far better than the implied contract found with marriage.

      ---------------------------

      I have gay friends and gay couples and they are friend, and what they do in private is their business.

      But the politically militant LGBT movement is not my friend and it is using political power and wealth to get its way. I don't like that, and I don't agree with their philosophy.

      It is not religion that I base my objection to same sex marriage, but simply on the basis that it doesn't make sense. It is an unnatural torsion to human life to satisfy people that want us to be FORCED to accept their deviation from biology as normal.

      Without the help of bisexuals or science, homosexuality couldn't exists for any extended life period.

      Calling a chicken in a tuxedo a penguin

    • Ronclimer profile image
      Author

      Ronclimer 5 years ago from First Real Estate School in Hendersonville, North Carolina

      id radmaster

      You say you don't think race is a reasonable comparison to gender. Let's see. There was a time in history when a certain gender was not allowed to vote. A certain gender is still discriminated against in the workplace. Gender is a discriminated group. Gay people are discriminated against. It is comparing apples to apples and it is wrong. It is wrong.

      I don't understand your comment about polygamy.

      Your comment that same sex marriage does not solve the isses also did not make much sense. The purpose of marriage is not to solve issues. The purpose of marriage is for two people that love each other to declare this love for everyone to see.

      When a straight couple wants to get married and declare their love for all the world to see, the law does not prevent this. If they choose not to marry ,it is their choice. You are correct. People that choose not to marry should not marry. The ones that do choose to marry should not be prohibited by state laws.

      You commented that the only reason that gays want to marry is to validate their lifestyle. How do you know why gays want to marry? Did a gay person express that thought to you? Did you just make that up? Why do straight couples want to marry? Is it to validate their lifestyle? If you are married, did you marry to validate your lifestyle? I think people marry to announce to the world that," This is the one person that I love. We are one. I will forsake all others for this person and this person will forsake all others for me." Only marriage makes that announcement. Only marriage is that commintment. Everything else is something else.

      My article is not about people that are not married. We call those people friends where I come from. They are also treated like friends at funerals and hospitials and courthouses.

      I certainly did not understand the comment about the chicken wearing a tuxedo.

      You commented that fifty percent of people that get married, get divorced. What does this have to do with whether or not gay people should have the right to marry whomever they love?

      Your last comment was that gay marriage can never be normalized. The point of my article was that same sex marriage will be normal in fifty years. You are probably not old enough to remember 1958 when my friends and I went into a resturant but my black friend,Rosby was not allowed to come into the resturant and drink a Coke. You are probably not old enough to remember "white only" water fountains at the Dairy Queen. You probably have never seen "colored" restrooms in the courthouse. You probably don't remember when a person in a wheelchair could not get into many buildings. You probably think Henry Ford invented handicap parking. None of this seems normal today. It was not long ago that this was NORMAL and legal. These realities were not long ago. They were wrong then and they are wrong now. What were we thinking? What are you thinking today? Are you thinking, gay people should not be gay? They are gay. They are someone's son or daughter. They are citizens. They pay taxes and they vote. They love someone. If you son or daughter wanted to marry would you want them to be able to marry the person they love or would it be better that the government tells them who they can marry? I think everyone should be able to choose who they love and who they marry. Do you think some people need the government to tell them who to marry? Attitudes will changes. Social customs will change. Laws will change. The sooner it happens, the better for all of us. Don't you agree?

    • ib radmasters profile image

      ib radmasters 5 years ago from Southern California

      You can't compare race with gender to make a valid argument here.

      This is truly apples and oranges, and not types of apples or types of oranges.

      You need to love your family no matter what, but people outside of your family don't have to be compelled to follow you.

      Polygamy would be more acceptable than same gender marriage.

      The most important aspect of gay marriages is that it doesn't solve the issues. Many people want to have a loving relationship with another person but that doesn't mean that they want to get married. It is the same whether the couple is homo, or hetero.

      For these people, gay marriage doesn't help them. A more universal solution would be to make personal contracts between any two people that give them whatever rights they want, including those implied by marriage.

      That contract would be far better than the implied contract found with marriage. This contract would cover any couple with or without marriage.

      The only reason that gays want same sex marriage is to validate their lifestyle. Again, it doesn't solve the issue for couples outside of marriage. You can put a tuxedo on a chicken but it still won't be a penguin.

      Today the failed marriages are about 50%, and the divorce courts can't handle the heterosexual marriage dissolution, so how would they be able to handle same sex dissolution any better?

      Same sex marriages can never be normalized and equated to traditional marriages. Homosexuality could never sustain new life, and if it wasn't for bisexuals they would have disappeared in ancient history.