Are future generations going to look back on those against marriage between gay

Jump to Last Post 1-7 of 7 discussions (26 posts)
  1. peeples profile image94
    peeplesposted 8 years ago

    Are future generations going to look back on those against marriage between gay people....

    the same way we now look back on those against interracial marriage years ago? Isn't it exactly the same thing? So will it likely result in the same type of view 40 years from now, or is something special about this time that makes it different?

  2. Ericdierker profile image48
    Ericdierkerposted 8 years ago

    Truly a marvelous question. Perhaps it will cause reflection that is very healthy. I can already look back at myself. I was never against two folks of the same sex being together as a couple. But I chaffed against calling it marriage. Hey that was for us heterosexuals to destroy, make mockery of and generally disrespect ;-)
    But through time me, myself and I came to realize that it was more a matter about that damned piece of paper. Sure I thought it was inconsequential and really a contract with the state and not each other. It became obvious that "white privilege" was little different than "marriage privilege". I am glad I am no longer an ignorant pig when it comes to this subject.
    But I already hold my old self with ignorance based bias in ridicule. A lesson earned. So I sure hope that folk look back on us as a society with some head wagging and disdain. I hope they view us as idiots in this regard. I just am glad that it won't be my face in the picture when they read about it in texts.

    1. peeples profile image94
      peeplesposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Love your answer Eric!! Thank you!

  3. lisavollrath profile image88
    lisavollrathposted 8 years ago

    Yes, I think it will be like that. I look at how things were when I went to high school: there wasn't a single student who was openly gay, even though now, almost 40 years later, many of my former classmates are out and proud. Students in that same high school now are more open about their sexual orientation, and being gay just isn't that big a deal. Those kids are going to be parents in a few years, and their children will wonder what the heck their grandparents were thinking, making such a fuss over something that seems so boring to them. They'll live in a word where nobody gets turned away at the county clerk's office, simply because of ignorance and fear.

    1. fpherj48 profile image59
      fpherj48posted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I see that the current headline is that a Judge ordered her locked up.  The County Clerk, that is.

    2. Au fait profile image85
      Au faitposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, Ms. Davis is in jail until she decides to do her job.  Instead of grandstanding and pretending to be persecuted, why doesn't she just resign and get a job more along lines that fit her religious beliefs?

    3. peeples profile image94
      peeplesposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Happy so many are able to be open now, but there is a long way to go. I hope my children see a generation of kinder people. Happy to see the clerk, and maybe her son will be going to jail! They are there to do the people's work, no place for religion

    4. fpherj48 profile image59
      fpherj48posted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Hmmm, I'm not keeping up w/ this story! Her son? He works there too?  Ah, I see It's a family affair. Maybe she divorced 3 men because they wouldn't go to church wi/ her?  #4 should probably be the Pastor.

    5. peeples profile image94
      peeplesposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I read her son is also employed there and while the other people who work there said they would issue the licenses while clerk was in jail, son said he would not. Don't take my word, story was in FB feed, unsure of accuracy.

  4. Michael-Milec profile image61
    Michael-Milecposted 8 years ago

    The future generations would probably wonder of many past generations' reasonings; they even might think " what a weird people those  before us, they even admitted that " gay " people could compose a " marriage.'' Or the future generation might not even like it when "gay" begin '' making babies" , and  they might have be much different then " we are.''  Or perhaps  the future generation would be witnessing a great interference of the Creator who always " rewarding " submissive to His principles as well  those who go against His universal principles... It happened before and the results were not so nice for some...

    1. Austinstar profile image84
      Austinstarposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      None of what you just said makes any sense to me at all.

    2. fpherj48 profile image59
      fpherj48posted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I read your comment 3 x's...slowly.  I'm gonna have to agree with Austin.  I kept repeating,  "HUH????"  That's not good.

    3. Aime F profile image72
      Aime Fposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      To summarize:

      Blah blah gay marriage is a sin blah blah gay people can't have babies blah blah marriage belongs between a man and a woman because God said so blah blah blah

    4. peeples profile image94
      peeplesposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      The damning/rewarding threats never worked for me. Also Leviticus is not followed by Christians unless it is the part said to be about gays. If anyone should be using it I would think it would be Jews. I really don't understand picking and choosing.

    5. Michael-Milec profile image61
      Michael-Milecposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you Austinstar, you might be right...--PAULA, Your sincerity is much appreciated. Bless you....-- ALME, very interesting respond isn't it ?

  5. dashingscorpio profile image82
    dashingscorpioposted 8 years ago

    It was in 1967 the Supreme Court invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage in "Loving v. Virginia"; which pitted an interracial couple – 17-year-old Mildred Jeter, who was black, and her childhood sweetheart, 23-year-old white construction worker, Richard Loving – against Virginia's "miscegenation" laws banning marriage between black and whites.
    After marrying in Washington, D.C. and returning to their home state in 1958, the couple was charged with (unlawful cohabitation) and jailed.
    It's now 2015 with passage of 48 years it now seems almost impossible to believe in the United States it was ever {against the law} for blacks and white couples to marry let alone cohabitate!
    Yes I believe that 40 or 50 years from now children living today will wonder why it was ever against the law for two adults to marry the person they loved. Especially when they learn it was not against the law to be gay or for them to love and cohabitate with each other.
    With all the pressing issues taking place in the country it's hard to imagine why the government would want to tell Sue she can't marry Tammy in a country that espouses (separation of church and state).
    Laws forbidding interracial and same sex marriage are discriminatory.

    1. peeples profile image94
      peeplesposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      It really isn't logical is it? The fact that being gay or cohabitation was never illegal, yet people doing something completely legal were/are discriminated against when it comes to marriage. I agree, more important issues they could be working on.

    2. fpherj48 profile image59
      fpherj48posted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Aww go ahead peeples, you can hit my age. In fact pretty girl, one day you WILL hit it!!  LMAO!  Yes, poor Kim is behind bars & this is far from the end of her troubles. She needs to understand a whole LOT!

  6. fpherj48 profile image59
    fpherj48posted 8 years ago

    peeples.....My generation (boomers) need only go back as far as our teens......which for most of us is a bit more than 40 years (we have our 50th. HS reunion coming up....gasp!)
    I will not repeat some of the terrible, gruesome names & attitudes toward gays at that time.
    In addition to that bias, a "pregnancy" was literally HORRIFYING, DISGRACEFUL, SINFUL....OH LORD, FOR SHAME!  The poor young woman was sent away, hidden and made to feel like a complete harlot!  SHAME ON THAT ATTITUDE.
    Gosh...only one generation later, a bride & groom included their children in their wedding party!   
    Straying from or worse, changing the Religion of your family & upbringing made you a nasty rebel with a possible mental defect.  This actually meant that children from that era were denied their freedom of religion choice at birth!  (I suppose a lot of that still remains, but the stigma has long since been ignored.)

    A divorce was the wearing of a sad label.  You were failures, damaged goods, selfish & unfit for re-marriage.....

    An inter-racial marriage got one literally kicked out of their family, shunned and possibly ridiculed out of town on the next coach leaving for the other side of the Country.

    Foolish?  To say the very least.  We grow, we change, live & learn.  As Maya Angelieu is quoted continually for having  said it so beautifully,
    "When we KNOW better....we DO better."   That applies to just about anything we can discuss, wouldn't you say?    Peace, Paula

    1. Au fait profile image85
      Au faitposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I think some people are a little more critical of out of wedlock babies and mixed marriages, and divorce, than you might think after all this time, but otherwise I'm with you all the way.  Agree.

    2. fpherj48 profile image59
      fpherj48posted 8 years agoin reply to this

      As usual Au fait, no argument from me on UR "exceptions." Just seems to me that "those" people have become much less VOCAL and/or publicly judgmental in terms of their criticism ( for simple self protection! LOL) Then there are the unflinching, yes!

    3. peeples profile image94
      peeplesposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Wow, I don't believe I could have said it better. I am glad you are a generation ahead of me and have the views you do (no hit on your age I promise). Progress happens, it's amazing! Learning, and changing. 2 good things! Happy about the clerk BTW.

    4. Au fait profile image85
      Au faitposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Paula, those people tend to hang together like birds of a feather, so anyone not of same mind might think they had gone away, and yes, in general their voices are more muted, but not amongst themselves.

    5. fpherj48 profile image59
      fpherj48posted 8 years agoin reply to this

      LOL, Au fait...I just happen to KNOW a few of them. Rest my Mom's soul, she was a  DOOZY!  She had hard core opinions & beliefs and if U were in KNEW what they were!!  Never changing, but it was all good! smile

  7. Aime F profile image72
    Aime Fposted 8 years ago

    I sure hope so!  It would mean that it's truly considered to be normal and the outdated, unfair bias against gay people will be (mostly) a thing of that past.  That would be pretty amazing.

    1. peeples profile image94
      peeplesposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I can only hope so. It makes no sense why so many are worried about what two consenting adults choose to do when it comes to marriage.


This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at:

Show Details
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the or domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)