Go to LETTERS, ESSAYS & SHORTS
- Add a comment
- Go to OBJECTIONS TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: THE REAL REASON(S)!
Re: Gepruitt
SoulBuilder, you just summed up my whole post in one powerful, well-constructed,
sentence! Thank you. That was beautiful!
posted by
GEPRUITT
on September 19, 2007 at 12:59 PM
| link to this | reply
Gepruitt
If everyone is free, once they don't infringe on the rights of others, they can be what they want to be, to their edification or detriment!
posted by
Soul_Builder101
on September 19, 2007 at 7:20 AM
| link to this | reply
Re: Can't agree
Dave,
Welcome to my post. You say that you can't agree with me at all. I just want to let you know that this is fine with me. If I get offended by those who disagree with me, then that is my problem, not yours! In fact, I think we can learn just as much or more by those who disagree with us as from those who may disagree! To make it a "personal" matter would be a mistake.
I would just remind you that the title of this post was "Objections to Same-Sex Marriage: The REAL Reasons!" The title was not "MY Objections ....," and I have not changed my mind on that score. Regardless of whether these SHOULD be valid reasons or not, they are, nevertheless, with many, many people, strong and viable reasons. To ignore this fact is to akin to "hiding ons's head in the sand," and accomplishes little toward addressing a solution.
As far as your question about reading another word of my writing, let me say, also respectfully, that, using the vernacular, I don't really give a rat's ass. If you only wish to read those with whom you can agree, then that is your business. At any rate, you will soon have an opportunity to read more of my writing on this same or similar topic.
Thanks for your comments. They are always welcome here, whether pro or con!
posted by
GEPRUITT
on September 18, 2007 at 3:49 PM
| link to this | reply
GEPRUITT - I have no problems at all when someone references my posts in
the way that you have done.
There would not be any kind of dialogue or interaction at all if we held people referencing our posts to saying things we agree with as a criteria. All we can ask is a sincere attempt at rebuttal or endorsement which you have done.
One of the things that happens here in this post is that you make a subtle shift from the original question which was: "How does the passage of same sex marriage legislation threaten the sanctity of the institution of marriage in any way?" into: (paraph.) " .. . the reasons why people feel the way they do about same sex marriage?" which is almost an entirely different sentiment. The reasons as you see them, regardless as to how sound they may or may not be as contentions, cannot adequately address the original question.
If we are to consider the second question in defining the reasons why non affected parties to same sex marriages feel the way they do we cannot ignore the obvious. Some religious beliefs hold that gays are sinners and the majority of heterosexuals harbor some degree of prejudice towards gays. The challenge in establishing and maintaining inalienable rights for all citizens of a free society is to cut through these things and focus exclusively on the issue. We cannot ask any segment of society to exemplify standards or fullfill criteria above and beyond what other members of society already holding the sought after rights are subject to. Therefore questions of gay promiscuity, marriage success or divorce rates and yes even adoption, are all irrelevent to the extension of these rights.
posted by
gomedome
on September 18, 2007 at 10:41 AM
| link to this | reply
I can't agree with you at all Gepruitt. Your first argument that such behaviours (and subsequently marriages) aren't normal and natural would easily be acceptable to the Roman and Greek worlds in the pre-Christian era. They are normal and natural to me also in the modern era.
Your danger to children argument I find distasteful, particularly the comparison to the damage done by Thalidomide. Loving parents are all a child needs. Whether they are heterosexual, homosexual, married, living together, divorced or single parents, love is all a child needs to prosper.
Your further argument that such fellow human beings with their life choices are adding to pollution, I also find distasteful. With such a statement you're condemning people I love and people that you yourself undoubtedly know.
Your final argument seems to be that if you want to be treated as normal, then you shouldn't declare yourself as 'abnormal'. You're surely not saying that human beings should deny themselves for the sensititivities of others. Maybe you are. However, if you ask me to do that, then sadly you don't fit into my interpretation of 'normal'.
I respectfully disagree with pretty much everything you've said. Do you want me now to dismiss you as 'abnormal' and never read your thoughts again?
posted by
_dave_says_ack_
on September 18, 2007 at 4:04 AM
| link to this | reply
Re: GEPRUITT - I feel compelled to comment because you reference my post
Gomedome. So you don't see a valid argument in what I am saying? What can I say? If you don't see it, then you don't see it! That is perfectly fine with me. I am not trying
to convince you, nor do I feel it necessary to explain my opinions of what I think are the
real reasons why others object to same-sex marriage. This has already been done. I could only repeat what I have already said.
I hope that my reference to your post was O.K. with you. I would not have used it if I
thought you might object. Please let me know if you feel otherwise, and you have my word
that I will not do it again.
Thanks for your comments, and have a great day!
posted by
GEPRUITT
on September 17, 2007 at 11:33 PM
| link to this | reply
GEPRUITT - I feel compelled to comment because you reference my post
but I don't see a valid argument in what you are saying.
Adoption as an example is an issue outside of marriage itself and safeguards are built into the adoption process. It is also a stronger point in favor of same sex marriage than it is against it due to one simple reality. The majority of children, today in North America that are now living in same sex parented households are the biological offspring of one member of the same sex couple. There have been very few same sex couple adoptions in North America by comparison. These children are denied some of the inherent rights of survivorship and other rights by the inability of their parents to be legally married. To raise adoption as a concern not only ignores all of the valid points as raised by sannhet in his earlier comment, it attempts to amplify something that is a minor aspect of our society. In that such a miniscule percentage of the total populace will apply to adopt from within a same sex partnership. Then if they do they will face the same scrutiny as all other prospective adoptive parents. Which is the way it should be.
When you say things such as this: " . . . because same-sex marriage is not "normal" or "natural!" . . ." that is only to you and I, to someone who has same sex preferences it is as right as rain. In summary; your inability to convey a convincing argument is not unusual, all other arguments I have ever seen on this issue rely heavily on two things to prop them up. Issues irrelevent to the main issue, which is entirely one of human rights, and opinions derived from a distaste of the subject at hand.
posted by
gomedome
on September 17, 2007 at 10:14 PM
| link to this | reply
Re: GE -
Good points, all, Sannhet! Thanks for responding; I can not see where anyone could
consider any of your comments dis-respectful! Being raised in a loving and generally
peaceful environment is the key. This is far more important than the sexual or religious
affilliation of the parents.
posted by
GEPRUITT
on September 17, 2007 at 6:43 PM
| link to this | reply
GE -
Granted, studies concerning children raised by gay parents have only been done for the past 30 years, the overwhelming evidence shows that children of gay/straight parents (two parents are the key - regardless of sexual orientation) have significantly less behavioral problems then those raised by a single parent. Additionally, studies show that children 12 to 18 raised by gay parents are similar to peers whose parents are heterosexual in measures of self-esteem, depression, anxiety, school "connectedness" and school success. Also, in studies conducted thus far, gender identity among pre-adolescent children raised by lesbian mothers are in line with their biological gender. (All studies referenced found in the Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics).
Of course, study after study has shown that children raised in loving environments have better self esteem, less depression, less anxiety and usually are successful in school and in life. I mean no disrespect, but I for one would prefer to know today that a child is being raised in a loving environment, regardless of the sexual orientation of the parents.
posted by
sannhet
on September 17, 2007 at 4:44 PM
| link to this | reply