The Same People

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: punkzanyj @ 06/06/2008 6:24:38 AM

    Gay Lifestyle? You mean the one where I go to work, pay my taxes, donate to charity, make people laugh, and generally try to be a good person? That gay lifestyle?

    Should society change? It already has, most people agree that gays and lesbians deserve equal rights, they just disagree on the details.

  • Posted By: BoGilles @ 06/05/2008 7:51:21 AM

    AuntieEm,
    I can understand that my statement would seem contradictory to you.
    I love and respect my brother who is gay, but his lifestyle clearly indicates that his relationship with his partner(s) is nothing about love.
    All I know about gay people is what hits home. May be I should refrain from making comments about gay in general, but my religious background has ingrained in me a solid foundation based on what is considered normal and decent.
    To put you in my frame of mind, I'll share with you some of my feelings about gay in my family that tells me that homosexuality is a choice.
    A uncle of mine was a devoted husband and father. After my aunt died after 40 years of marriage, my uncle turned to other men immediately at the age of 75.(that's incredible).
    One of my younger brother's wife after 30 years of marriage, decided to leave to live with another woman. But, after a two years period, my brother decided to remarry. Immediately his wife, contacted him begging to come back. Needless to say you know the answer to that.
    Now put yourself in my place and try to figure out how I should not see homosexuality as a choice.
    It's how I respect the people mentioned but see lust instead of love.
    I'm sorry if I offended or confused you with my comments.

    • Posted By: AuntieEm @ 06/06/2008 2:34:19 AM

      Regarding your brother and his relationship, I cannot comment because I do not know them. However, I dont think it is fair for you to take one example and generalize it to an entire group of people. How would you feel if someone assumed all heterosexual marriages were like that of Britney Spears and Jason Alexander?

      Regarding "how I should not see homosexuality as a choice", I think you are probably (given only the info you stated) mixing up sexual BEHAVIOR with sexual ORIENTATION. Sounds to me like the two cases you presented were classic cases of people who were gay (or at least bisexual) in ORIENTATION who (given the time frames you mentioned, ie probably married back before 1970's) yielded to strong societal pressure to marry someone of the opposite sex, during which, very likely they engaged in heterosexual BEHAVIOR but also very likely remained homosexual in ORIENTATION (thus explaining why, after many years, they found they had to be true to who they really were inside, ie ORIENTATION).

      Thanks for your explanation, I appreciated your not wanting to offend me, and I do think you are genuinely trying to understand -- I just think you need to look at things a little differently, to see other possibilities that you have not already thought of. My suggestion is that you think more about the difference between orientaiton and behavior, as I noted above; that distinction is generally NOT made in most religious institutions, the two concepts are often mushed together as one and the same, which they are not. My best to you (actually to ALL of us) as we struggle with these ideas and issues.

  • Posted By: banshiii @ 06/05/2008 11:01:18 PM

    Good lord!
    Let me vote on your rights!

  • Posted By: banshiii @ 06/05/2008 10:55:35 PM

    yeah. love it.
    And how true it is. Change is scarey for some... most of us.
    I have a wondeful, loving, powerful god and a beautiful spouse sleeping in the other room right now.
    I will move forward, unafraid.
    Congratulations Cally!

  • Posted By: Packman101 @ 06/03/2008 6:24:21 PM

    The people of California voted to ban gay-marriage. The Courts decided that law was unconstitutional despite the fact that the California Constitution is silent on the issue. I'm sending my 8-year old to California to get his driver's license. I'm sure the Court will read their constitution (which is silent on the issue of 8-year olds driving) and say that not giving 8-year olds' drivers licenses is unconstitutional. Apparently, the way the California court reads it's constitutions, anybody should be able to get a license for anything!

    It's ridiculous that our democracy isn't working - the people voted. The courts legislated. Wow. The people lost their voice. The elite chosen few now run this country.

    • Posted By: Johnsonium @ 06/03/2008 6:48:55 PM

      The majority isn't allowed to trample on the majority. If it were the case, we'd still have Jim Crow laws etc.

      • Posted By: Packman101 @ 06/03/2008 6:58:07 PM

        I don't know that the people of California voting to KEEP marriage between a man and a woman is "trampling on the minority." It's an issue of common values and morals. Laws that keep men from marrying boys is not "trampling on the minority." Are laws against polygamy also "trampling on the minority" in your mind?

        • Posted By: Johnsonium @ 06/03/2008 7:00:36 PM

          No. Because polygamy laws are applied equally to both sexes.

          • Posted By: Packman101 @ 06/03/2008 7:09:03 PM

            Gays are not the only minority. Polygamous cult-members are minorities too! We wouldn't want to trample on their right to marry. Too bad they got caught in Texas rather than California... maybe their marriages to 10-year olds could've become legal by August.

            • Posted By: Johnsonium @ 06/03/2008 7:15:34 PM

              You are obviously too ignorant to understand the issue. It's about sex discrimination.

              • Posted By: Packman101 @ 06/03/2008 7:26:52 PM

                Actually I'm fairly well informed about the issue (not ignorant as you say). I suppose it is easier to attack me personally rather than to continue debating the issue itself. I suppose the majority of Californians are ignorant in your mind, too - since they are the ones who voted to make the law banning same-sex marriage in the first place.

                • Posted By: Johnsonium @ 06/03/2008 7:36:14 PM

                  There's nothing to debate. It's sex discrimination and polygamy is not.

                  • Posted By: Packman101 @ 06/03/2008 7:52:42 PM

                    Laws against polygamy are not considered sexual discrimination... yet. Just wait my friend... once America has redefined marriages from "one man and one woman" to "any man or woman to any man or woman", then "any man or woman to however many men or women" is soon to follow.

                    Those polygamous cult men down in Texas with their many wives have already packed and are headed to California.

                    • Posted By: bboushley80 @ 06/04/2008 5:29:26 PM

                      Comment: The diffence is...you make a choice to be a polygamist, to enter into an adult-child marriage, and animal-human marriage...(these are your own comparisons, not mine). You do not make a choice to be gay. I know because I am gay, and not attracted to women sexually nor do I wish to make a committment to woman and spend my life living a lie. You must think being gay is a choice. And you can't possibly know the answer to that...you know why? CAUSE YOU ARE STR8. It isn't a choice...why would someone choose to be gay, and spend their time talking to the likes of you. Believe me, I don't enjoy it.

                      • Posted By: Packman101 @ 06/05/2008 8:41:09 AM

                        So "adult-child marriage," "human-animal marriage," and "polygamous-marriage" is a choice, but "gay-gay marriage" is not? I never said you could help who you were attracted to. I'm sure that the men who are attracted to boys don't believe it is a choice either, neither the ones who are attracted to animals. Polygamists can't help that they are attracted to and fall in love with so many women, either. The choice is whether or not we act on those feelings. If they immoral then we need to overcome them, rather than act on them.

                        • Posted By: bboushley80 @ 06/05/2008 8:29:09 PM

                          Also, I would like to pose another question for you. Overcome these feelings? So you are saying that gay people should try to supress these feelings and marry someone of the other sex....that doesn't seem very honest....and even if you were honest with your opposite sex spouse for your homosexual feelings..who would want to marry someone that can't give you their love to full potential? Think about it. How honest would that life be? Doesn't seem very Christian to me.

                        • Posted By: bboushley80 @ 06/05/2008 8:16:19 PM

                          Overcome...I can see you are trying hard not to use religious terms here. Your beliefs are based in your faith, which has nothing to do with my gay marriage. It actually has nothing to do with you...who I love...and where my happiness lies...Just because you think it is wrong and not natural, does not mean it shouldn't be legal...Again, please don't associate polygamy and child molestation with gay people....this is highly offensive...I understand you wish to make points, but find another way....I really wish you could would understand.

        • Posted By: fuhrfen84 @ 06/03/2008 7:13:00 PM

          It has been proven that a person is considered a child under the age of 18. Until that point, neither a man or woman can marry that person. Your example was hideous and irrelevant. This has nothing to do with children. So leave that out of this.

          • Posted By: Packman101 @ 06/03/2008 7:22:59 PM

            It is a hideous example. Not that long ago, the example of two men marrying each other was considered hideous. (And it actually still is hideous for most Californians - just not to their supreme court).

            • Posted By: Johnsonium @ 06/03/2008 7:29:34 PM

              It's hideous to close-minded bigots. Overcoming closed-minded bigots is the American way. It's led us to racial and sexual equality (at least in theory). We don't get anywhere by listening to the ignorant among us.

              • Posted By: Packman101 @ 06/03/2008 7:42:59 PM

                Again the personal attack - so everybody who is not for gay-marriage is an ignorant close-minded bigot? Surely you don't really believe that.

                • Posted By: crj2002 @ 06/04/2008 12:46:43 AM

                  What and you don't think Jim Crow laws weren't viewed by those against it as common values and morals? That segregation wasn't valued and morally okay by the southern whites? Just a thought

  • Posted By: Bhamdude40s @ 06/05/2008 5:38:49 PM



    • Posted By: Bhamdude40s @ 06/05/2008 5:40:52 PM

      10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong

      01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

      02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

      03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

      04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

      05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Brittany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

      06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

      07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

      08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

      09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

      10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.


  • Posted By: jamcl @ 06/05/2008 5:30:15 PM

    Much ado about 'Defense of Marriage', and 'Natural Law'.

    Unnatural behavior is by definition engaging in acts that go against ones nature, so it would seem that forcing those who are attractied to members of their own sex to behave as heterosexual, or remain celebate against their wishes is to require such behavior by them.

    And over the course of a long married life I never found that the marital relationships of friends, neighbors, or family had any effect on my marriage other than the warmth we shared when loved ones married, or the sadness when they parted.

  • Posted By: jamcl @ 06/05/2008 5:16:16 PM

    How strange it all is. So many waxing wroth over the behavior of so few.

    One wonders how all these opponents to the loving joining of others will be harmed?

  • Posted By: cleosmom @ 06/05/2008 8:55:47 AM

    ***Comment: Homosexuality is a choice. Just because someone has homosexual feelings doesn't mean that the individual has to give into those feelings. Humans are fallen beings, and have been since Adam and Eve. We have had a fallen, sinful nature since that time. ***

    People being "fallen beings" and Adam having even existed, whether literally or as a metaphor, is a religious belief. That's a choice.

    If it were not for religious freedom being protected under our Constitution, that could be a very effective weapon against any religious minority -- and a majority today can be a minority tomorrow. Be careful what you wish for.

    As far as comparing same-sex marriage to marrying animals or molesting children, the continued efforts to dehumanize gay citizens are distressing but Anna Quindlen is right. That ship has sailed. Get used to it.

  • Posted By: cleosmom @ 06/05/2008 8:54:57 AM

    ***Comment: Homosexuality is a choice. Just because someone has homosexual feelings doesn't mean that the individual has to give into those feelings. Humans are fallen beings, and have been since Adam and Eve. We have had a fallen, sinful nature since that time. ***

    People being "fallen beings" and Adam having even existed, whether literally or as a metaphor, is a religious belief. That's a choice.

    If it were not for religious freedom being protected under our Constitution, that could be a very effective weapon against any religious minority -- and a majority today can be a minority tomorrow. Be careful what you wish for.

    As far as comparing same-sex marriage to marrying animals or molesting children, the continued efforts to dehumanize gay citizens are distressing but Anna Quindlen is right. That ship has sailed. Get used to it.

  • Posted By: BoGilles @ 06/01/2008 5:29:16 PM

    Dear Anna,
    If the mention at the dinner table that a classmate had come out of the closet was only slightly more noteworthy than "pass the mac and cheese" you have failed as a parent . The fact that the other kids at school took gay for granted should not dictate you how to raise your children with values. At our dinner table a comment like that would have draw concern and "NO" the other kids at school DO NOT took gay for granted.
    I respect gay people as I ought to. My wife and I both have a brother that is gay. We love them both but we don't agree with their lifestyle. We draw the line at gay marriage. The gay-marriage issue is not over for us. We think that the word "MARRIAGE" is for a man and a woman. Although we disagree strongly with our President about the war in Iraq, we strongly agree with him about his definition of "MARRIAGE".
    Love has not won : lust did.

    • Posted By: AuntieEm @ 06/05/2008 4:48:17 AM

      BoGilles, thank you for pointing out how young people learn prejudice: from their elders, in this case from YOU.

      You SAY you "respect gay people", yet you later imply their relationship is based on "lust". How can you "respect" someone and at the same time spread false negative stereotypes about them? This is more than a rhetorical question. I want you to respond.

      And while you're at it, read madtownrunner262 @ 06/02/2008 23:56:54Comment. He (or she) is RIGHT on target!!!!

    • Posted By: madtownrunner262 @ 06/02/2008 11:56:54 PM

      "Love has not won: lust did." Do you think that the (presumably successful) marriage you and your wife has shared for (presumably) many years is based on lust? Then how can the relationship between my uncles (who have been together for more than 25 years) be any different? Relationships based on lust eventually crumble, relationships based on love prevail - regardless of the gender of the involved parties or the societal recognition of that relationship. Our country has a vested interested in ALL marriage, as it promotes stability and commitment.

  • Posted By: AuntieEm @ 06/05/2008 4:38:12 AM

    Posted By: eshuster @ 06/03/2008 5:30:18 PMComment: "I am certain that gay couple has the capacity to love one another. They can be devoted to one another and pledge a lifetime of fidelity. That is not the issue. The issue is that a gay lifestyle is deviant and should not be promoted to our children, nor to our society as being normal or acceptable. Most gay people I talk to would become heterosexual if they could, but they claim they cannot. Regardless of whether I agree with whether they can change or not, I understand their position. The point is that marriage is a sacred institution that must be reserved and respected as that which we want to promote as a society - that being between a man and woman. Once we start promoting gay marriages we become a weaker society and open the doors to other deviant lifestyles and norms. Can we please begin drawing the line in the sand for our country and not allow ourselves to continue to slip further and further into a destructive course for America? We accept gay people in our society - that is enough. I don't want our country to promote it. "

    Eshuster, our society used to discriminate against left-handed people. Left handed students were forced to learn to write ONLY with their right hand (leaving many adults who always had problems writing legibly), pay phones were almost impossible for lefties to navigate. Even the Bible was used as a reason to put down left-handed people (for 25 Biblical references, see, for starters: http://www.theworldofstuff.com/lefty/ ) -- ever wonder where the term "sinister" comes from?. Yet, like homosexual orientation, left-handedness occurrs naturally in a small percentage of every society and culture.

    Try re-stating your comment with "left-handed" every place you use "homosexual" or "gay", eg: "The issue is that a LEFT HANDED lifestyle is deviant and should not be promoted to our children, nor to our society as being normal or acceptable. Most LEFT HANDED people I talk to would become RIGHT HANDED if they could, but they claim they cannot. Regardless of whether I agree with whether they can change or not, I understand their position. The point is that marriage is a sacred institution that must be reserved and respected as that which we want to promote as a society - that being between TWO RIGHT_HANDED PEOPLED. Once we start promoting LEFT HANDED PEOPLE GETTING MARRIED we become a weaker society and open the doors to other deviant lifestyles and norms. Can we please begin drawing the line in the sand for our country and not allow ourselves to continue to slip further and further into a destructive course for America? We accept LEFT HANDED people in our society - that is enough. I don't want our country to promote it. "

    THAT was what was believed in this country as late as the 1920's. Doesn't it sound silly now?

  • Posted By: BoGilles @ 06/04/2008 6:10:28 PM

    Morals are not a thing of the past. May be in your neighborhood but not in mine. There are countless people with morals in this country that are silent and it is sad.
    I'm wondering how many people on this forum agree with ixmarcusd?

    • Posted By: AuntieEm @ 06/05/2008 4:11:58 AM

      Interesting thing about the word "morals". I remember all the polls that have asked about "moral values", without DEFINING the term. To me, "moral values" are things like: be honest, care for those in need, feed the hungry, care for the sick, provide for widows and orphans, be kind to others, don't cheat on tests, help the old lady carry her groceries, etc. But "moral values" has become a code word, to some people, meaning "don't allow same-sex marriage". Big difference.

  • Posted By: krissyrose81 @ 06/04/2008 5:16:45 PM

    Why is it that those who espouse hatred get more attention than those that offer a simple human point of view? If you are lucky enough to find love, you should not have to face puritanical obstacles, that have never had a logical basis for existing in the first place. My dream is that someday my children will never have to live in a world where hatred trumps humanity and due to conversations of this nature they won't have to. Thank you for a very timely article.

  • Posted By: bluesouth73 @ 06/04/2008 4:14:05 PM

    By the way the romans ruled for about 1500 years so if thats the case we have a few to go.and just because your a man and women doesn't make you loving.more married men and PRIEST molest children than gays.Plus what about all of the loving dead beat dads and moms on welfare.

  • Posted By: bboushley80 @ 06/03/2008 7:49:59 PM

    If rules/laws were created due to majority opinion...our schools would still be segregated and women would not vote. Remember it was courts that made these decisions too! Damn those activist judges!

    • Posted By: Packman101 @ 06/03/2008 8:50:42 PM

      Actually, women received the right to vote in 1920 when a MAJORITY of our elected representatives (not a court) voted to amend the CONSTITUTION of the United States with the passage of the 19th Amendment. Learn your history.

      The segregation laws in the south were overturned by the Supreme Court in 1954 based upon the 14th Amendment (A National Constitutional Law that was already in place). Show me where in the California Constitution it protects what most society's now and in all of history have condemned. The court legislated moral law from the bench. Laws aren't supposed to be made by the courts. They're supposed interpreted. If the Constituion is silent, so should the court be. Laws are made by the people and the people's representatives. Californians will now have the opportunity to amend their Constitution in November and undo the immoral decision of the court.

      • Posted By: bboushley80 @ 06/03/2008 8:57:37 PM

        Actually the California legislature voted for gay civil unions twice...and it passed both times. Guess who gave it the veto? The GOVERNATOR! I believe the California legislature would be elected representatives of the people.

        • Posted By: Packman101 @ 06/03/2008 9:04:05 PM

          That's my point. The Governator is their ELECTED representative. The people make the laws... NOT the courts. If the people don't like their representative, they can vote him out and get someone else.

          • Posted By: bboushley80 @ 06/03/2008 9:08:37 PM

            And my point..these are your words "Laws aren't supposed to be made by the courts. They're supposed interpreted." This law was made by the elected (like the governor) legislature, but veteod by one man. The court didn't just come up with this concept on their own.

            • Posted By: Packman101 @ 06/03/2008 9:46:09 PM

              Your point doesn't make sense. I said "laws aren't supposed to be made by the courts." Arnold Governator is NOT the courts. He is an elected official. Quick lesson - there are 3 branches of government - executive, legislative and judicial. The Governator cannot make laws... but he can VETO them! He speaks for the people just as the legislative branch does. The Courts cannot make laws... they are only supposed to interpret them. The California court legislated from the bench because there is NOTHING in their constitution about the definition of marriage... yet.

              • Posted By: summer4077 @ 06/04/2008 9:43:06 AM

                The point makes perfect sense. You yourself referenced a majority of elected representatives making the decision to give women equal rights. The majority of elected representatives (representing the majority of the people) chose to give gays equal rights. The GOVERNATOR (ONE person!) vetoed it. One person is not the majority.

                • Posted By: Packman101 @ 06/04/2008 3:52:28 PM

                  Summer - you do understand how our government works, right? The legislative branch legislates (makes bills). The executive branch can veto the bill. It is not law unless the legislative branch overturns the veto with a 2/3 vote. Both the executive and legislative branches represent the voice of the people because they are elected by the people. The judicial branch doesn't make law - it only interprets law. They are not supposed to legislate new laws from the bench - which is exactly what happened in CA because the California Constitution is silent on the issue of the definition of marriage... for now.

              • Posted By: bboushley80 @ 06/03/2008 10:02:50 PM

                June 17th, baby! 1st marriage licenses will be available. I will be all smiles. Thanks, California!

  • Posted By: aristonymus @ 06/04/2008 3:12:40 PM

    We are supposed to feel comforted that two Roman men got married in the second century A.D.? This rather detracts from the author's case. The Roman empire collapsed under the weight of its amoral permissive behavior -- each generation progressively got weaker as the family became less important. What sanctifies marriage are the children that make come from the union. Children deserve to be raised by a loving mother and father. When we forget this fundamental truth, we too will fall as did Rome.

  • Posted By: creationman @ 06/04/2008 1:43:19 PM

    Throughout the comments I have read about what a great country we would be if only everyone would have more tolerance. My tolerance is not infinite, and because of my belief system find it hard to support this gay marriage agenda. My belief system brings morality into play and I see this country falling like a bag of stones straight into the abyss.

  • Posted By: jmelliott @ 06/04/2008 12:45:04 PM

    How many of us would be willing to submit our rights to a majority vote? This is above all, an equal rights issue, and one any group denies the rights of others, all of our rights are in jeopardy. Ms. Quinlan gets it right when she says "the sacred business of judges is not to ratify the will of the majority, but to protect the minority from its tyranny." If we're all honest with ourselves, we know that at some point in history our ancestors benefited from such wisdom and protection (in this country). If being Americans has any value, then we must practice what we preach and begin with equal rights and fairness for all at home. And if anyone can tell me that Jesus, the only human-form of God that anyone as ever heard from, specifically was against homosexuality, I'm all ears! His message was nothing but acceptance, kindness and inclusion.

  • Posted By: Bhamdude40s @ 06/04/2008 11:55:57 AM

    I wouls like to andrewinsanpedro diecribe what NORMAL NATURAl right is beause OLD testement David had more than one wife. and some question a relationship with Jonathan in 2ns Samuel. After Christ it became one man and one woman and " What God has put to gehter let no man put us under " Is Meant to be NO DIVORCE and DIVORCE is rampid in thi scountry over as little things as what he fixed for dinner last night. So What Part of UNFAIR but JUST do yo uwant to go in a country that is Built on Equality and Justice SINCE you are going back to the begining of time. SINE the begining of time HUMANITY has beeb progressive and the next step being gay marriage isnt going to bother anything but your pride sine from what I read your NOT GAY. So it seems you argument in Self Centered and ONLY I SHOULD HAVE RIGHTS. Well your in a BIG O BLUE STATE first thing you might consider and I am sure is on alot Of Homosexuals minds in this country is MOVE.... Your Neighbors are going to be MARRIED HOMOSEXUALS...

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse