<p>I am having a difficult time understanding why people get so jumpy about gay marriage. I live in Georgia, and my state voted to completely ban gay marriage, and not only that, to ban same sex unions. That means that if one person is in the hospital, the partner isn't allowed to visit them. </p>
<p>I understand why someone might think gay marriage is wrong because of religious reasons. I am Christian and am kind of unsure about how I feel about it, but I don't understand why my state has the right to completely ban gay marriage. If you are against gay people, then fine. Separate yourself from them. It's not like the second gay people get married you are going to be effected in a harmful way. If it doesn't effect you personally, then why does Bush and other politicians make it apart of their agenda to ban gay marriage? </p>
<p>And I thought that the U.S. was the land of the free and an open and progressive nation, but I guess I am wrong.</p>
<p>Ignorant people are fearful of things they don't understand! Like, if you are gay, then you can't teach children in school 'cuz "all those gays must be pedophiles!" I am not gay, but I work and teach with many gay people who state being "gay" is not a choice. It is a mindset for whatever reason. Some day I hope they find a gene for "gayness' which will then make every thing all right!! Then those gay people cannot be discriminated against because they will come under the Americans with Disabilities Act! HA!</p>
<p>I don't think it's a choice either. I am not gay, but know quite a few gay people. Knowing them as I do, I don't have any doubt that it isn't a choice. </p>
<p>Being ignorant is a choice......and such a choice was exercised by millions of Amricans yesterday.</p>
<p>My kids attended a local Montessori school. The director/owner of the school and his administrator partner are gay and have been together for many years. They have adopted two children.
All the parents (and eventually the kids, when they were older) knew they were gay.
We also knew our children were getting a wonderful education in a loving environment.
The Montessori school is now a California charter school and there is no tuition.</p>
<p>Well, you'd better hang on to your hats! The Conservatives in the South have elected an official that wants to ban gay men from teaching.........what will be next? A constiutional amendment to ban gay teachers, I suppose!</p>
<p>Slipstream: I'm not sure that chalk was being sarcastic....that kind of thinking allows gays to be strung up on a wire fence and left to die. I'm not sure this is the country that our ancestors would have imagined it to become. But, maybe it is.....witches were burned at the stakes and sinners were placed in pillaries. I shudder to think at what kind of moral strictures were in place in those days! Looks like we haven't really advanced socially from the Puritanical Days.</p>
<p>There are so many things other than gay marriage that affect Christianity. I don't see the conservative leaders fighting the adult film industry.</p>
<p>What gives people the right to decide what's right and wrong? There should be a seperation between church and state here. What's next? Are we going to ban mosques, temples, and the practice of Hinduism? </p>
<p>I can't believe how intolerant we have become, but I like to think that years down the road things will be different. Look at the civil rights movement. It took time.</p>
<p>Btw, wasn't religion the main justification for slavery?</p>
<p>Hoo_29, there are many reasons that gay marriage is a big deal to people. For most people, the very idea of marriage is that it is a traditional rite between a man and a woman. Not between two women, two men, a man and an animal, etc. So it is suggesting a change in a tradition that has been sacred for many years. To threaten something like this upsets people. Never mind that it is not written in many places, if anywhere, that opposite sexes need to be involved, that is what is understood. </p>
<p>Also the very idea of homosexuality is repugnant to a large percentage of the population. There are many insulting words connected to homosexuality. So the whole idea starts off on the wrong foot with most people. There may well come a time when gay couples become more accepted, and then the possibility for gay marriage will come, but clearly now is not the time. Politicians who really are not against gay marriage, do not dare to advocate it. They'll lose in a heartbeat with that stance. This is not a winnable forum at this time if it comes to a vote. This does not mean that it is right. There are many ideas that come around that are just and right that would not win on a vote. </p>
<p>There is also an economic price for permitting gay marriages. Businesses and government give benefits to spouses. There are financial breaks for being married. there are those who do not want to pay for this. It is one thing to keep the status quo which is entrenched in tradition, but to spread the benefit is a whole different story. I can tell you that I am very jumpy about additional taxes or additional uses for government money. I have my own list of things that I feel need more money, and gay marriages just do not make that list. </p>
<p>But I can also tell you that economics which the above reason against recognizing gay marriages was also THE main reason for slavery. It is a reason for a lot of things. I feel that the right for single sex marriage is going to have to go up the judicial ladder up to the supreme court to get some sort of judgement. And even then the "rightness" of it will be debated for a long time.</p>
<p>Duh, all are laws are determinations of what we think is right and wrong. Most are based in teachings that go back to the Bible and similar sources.</p>
<p>I don't have a problem with same sex unions, as long as its not called a "marriage". Gay couples should be able to have legal benefits. But calling it marriage is wrong, because its not a real marriage.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>For most people, the very idea of marriage is that it is a traditional rite between a man and a woman. Not between two women, two men, a man and an animal, etc. So it is suggesting a change in a tradition that has been sacred for many years. To threaten something like this upsets people. Never mind that it is not written in many places, if anywhere, that opposite sexes need to be involved, that is what is understood. <<</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>I think that's the main reason the issue is "frightening" to voters. People get unsettled when core traditions are turned upside down.</p>
<p>Politcally, the whole approach to "gay marriage" was misguided. It should have been pitched in a much more incremental fashion. Sell the things that the entire country can agree on: that a partner should be able to visit a partner in the hospital, etc. Those issues can easily be sold as traditional American values. I believe that the majority of Americans believe that what two people do in their bedrooms is nobody's business. But, by the same token "marriage" is a term that does have a rather well-defined meaning in our culture, a meaning that is deeply entwined with religious beliefs. Those aren't issues you want to attack overnight.</p>
<p>Alas, the failure to understand moderate American political views led the advocates to go for the whole enchilada in one big bite, much in the way that Hillary Clinton's naivetee doomed her health care reforms in Clinton's first term.</p>
<p>While the activist judges in California and Massachusetts grabbed headlines for their issue, they succeeded in galvanizing the country against an issue that could have been sold quite effectively with a more patient, incremental approach.</p>
<p>Why can't it be called marriage? How are they hurting you, personally? I have an uncle who is gay and my dad, who is the oldest of 4 boys, said that as a young child he displayed a dislike for sports(unlike the other 3 boys) but rather preferred to play dress-up and other similar activities. How can you say that a boy of not even 10 could make a conscious decision to be homosexual?</p>
<p>the problem is that marriage the religous institution is lumped together with marriage the civil institution. a church/religous organization has the right to decide who can get married under their laws. however, I don't belive that it is the governments business to say what type of couples can receive legal benefits. If we universally seperated civil unions and religous marriages for all couples then there would be no controversay... or at least i believe that there shouldn't be one.</p>
<p>I also wonder why people make such a big deal out of gay marriage. To say that it's because Leviticus doesn't care for it makes no sense to me; it's not like the religious right thinks that all the other laws in the Hebrew bible should be followed, so why get so worked up about that one? To say that it's because "marriage" means a man and a woman doesn't make sense to me either. It wasn't so long ago that the words doctor, Yale undergrad, Supreme Court Judge, etc. meant male doctor, male Yale undergrad, male Supreme Court judge... Words change and expand in meaning as realities change.And I don't know how to define a "real marriage." It certainly can't be defined by the possiblity of the pair having children, as 70 year olds marry, as do couples where one or the other is infertile. Those marriages are as real as any others. And one can't define it as "the kind of marriage we are used to," or "the kind that is legal" when it wasn't so long ago that marriages to someone of one's own race were the only kind we were used to or, in some places, were the only marriages allowed. Jewish/Christian marriages, of course, also were illegal in many parts of the world. But now most of us consider those to be real marriages. Yes, gays are repugnant to some segments of society, but I'm not sure why. Over the the centuries, so many different kinds of people have been thought of as repugnant. Women--all women--were pretty repugnant to some if not many segments of society. The things written against women in Pliny and in religious texts are very very strong and troubling statements. Jews, certainly, have been seen as repugnant, as have other so-called "heretics." Sigh. Perhaps people just need or enjoy being repulsed by some other group of people and pick the ones they think have the least power...</p>
<p>i'm cool with gay "unions", rights for gays, and treating gay people with respect, but:</p>
<p>from jamimom, above:
"...marriage is that it is a traditional rite between a man and a woman. Not between two women, two men, a man and an animal..."</p>
<p>i think gay marriage is immoral, and should not be allowed. and i think "not having a choice" is a weak excuse (i don't believe it). our country has lost much of its moral character in recent years, and i'd prefer if we held onto atleast SOME of our morals.</p>