Gay marriage has been an ongoing issue in many states for some time now, and is once again being hotly debated on the Federal level. Various states have seen legislation in support of gay marriage die on the floor of their chambers or be defeated at the ballot box. The recent repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and the challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act has given new life to the issue in our Nation’s Capitol and has led to a very charged public discourse. Not so much in the barbershops and “Houses of Hair”, though.
We usually try not to talk about homosexuality in the black community much less gay marriage because of the gravity of the moral issues surrounding the topic, unless it followed up or centered an HIV/AIDS discussion. Even though the “Church” serves as the true North of the American people’s moral compass on this issues, the “Church” itself is rife with homosexual men who will forever stay closeted because of attitudes in the church they attend faithfully. It’s almost kind of sad that the one entity that could and probably should help them will never reach out to them because of the Good Book, especially when the Eddie Long’s and Father Such n’ Such O’Malley’s of the world are getting caught with little boys on a quarterly basis.
The fact that heterosexual people have done a poor job of upholding the sanctity of marriage and the family unit is almost cliche now, and the stats to support that fact are abundant (and is probably best embodied in Bobby, Whitney and Bobby Christina aka Nose Candyland.) That aside, the fact of the matter is, whether it’s on the State or Federal level, the law is egregiously unconstitutional, and almost kind of surprising it’s still on the books, given the litigious culture we live in. Civil Unions have been presented as a concession, and that’s pretty much tantamount to “Separate But Equal”, but would accomplish the task of allowing someone to share their benefits with their partners.
This is the part of the where I should attempt to explain or validate my post by claiming to have a gay sibling or having befriended a gay person when no one else would. But the truth is, where I stand on the issue of homosexuality is not important. For that matter, it shouldn’t be important to the legislators and voters that have rejected the idea, because it really should not matter. Judging people based on ancient book whose authors thought it was cool to stone adulterous women and nail people to a cross seems a bit ass backwards and denying them basic rights seems even more ludicrous.
What’s your take on gay marriage? Should the Clergy, particularly the Black Clergy support gay marriage? Are Civil Unions an adequate compromise? For those of you that are totally against the idea, I’m interested in your point of view, and welcome you to express your opinions, but please do so respectfully.
Happy St. Patty’s Day laddies,
SBM Fam: Check out Slim tonight on I’m Just Saying Radio at 10pm Central. He’ll be going through 20 questions and talking about a recent post. Should be a good time.
gay marriage doesn't bother me one bit. if gay people want to get married let them. it doesn't affect my life one bit so why should i stop them from being happy? i find something wrong with the idea of people who try to push their will and beliefs on others.
I totally agree… let them, do them… lol
I'm not FOR gay marriage… however, I'm also not adamantly against it, either. At this point in my life, I'm kinda just "eh" about it. I guess I don't have a strong opinion about it either way. I do believe that homosexuality is a sin. However, so is fornication (which I am guilty of, so I have no room to judge any homosexual. A sin is a sin, right?). And I DO get VERY annoyed with how homosexuality is looked at as soooooo much worse than any other sexual sin that non homosexuals commit.At the end of the day we ALL have to ask for forgiveness.
I think its unrealistic to expect any clergy (black or non black) to support gay marriage, simply because it doesn't match up with the Church's beliefs. Again… it would be just as unrealistic to expect the Church to support heterosexual couples shacking up. However, I do think that the Church could do a better job of being loving, supportive and accepting of their gay church members. Again, within the church, known heterosexual fornicators aren't necessarily shunned the same way that gay people are. I don't understand what the difference is…
I can't say if civil unions are an adequate compromise, because I'm not one that would be making that compromise. I would think that some gay people may be okay with this, while others would not be.
I really just get annoyed with people making being gay more of a sin than any other sin that is discussed in the Bible. I just find it funny that the church will open their arms wide for a convicted murderer, yet not want to even look at a gay person. That's the part that I don't understand…
Anyway, the whole gay christian dynamic was discussed on the show that Lisa Ling hosts on the OWN network last week. It was really interesting to see how some gay people reconcile their lifestyle with their religious beliefs.
"I really just get annoyed with people making being gay more of a sin than any other sin that is discussed in the Bible. I just find it funny that the church will open their arms wide for a convicted murderer, yet not want to even look at a gay person. That’s the part that I don’t understand…"
I totally agree with you. Since no sin is greater than the other then everyone that sins (which is everyone) should be welcomed into the church.
However, I do think that the Church could do a better job of being loving, supportive and accepting of their gay church members. Again, within the church, known heterosexual fornicators aren’t necessarily shunned the same way that gay people are. I don’t understand what the difference is…
I really forgot this was still an issue in usa. In britain it's not. Gays are allowed to marry. Got chatting to a gay californian guy last week and he's passionate about fighting the decision that ruled it was illegal gays to marry in california…despite the fact that thousand married when the law first passed. I can't imagine the turmoil those folks are going through. It seems they'll be forced to automatically terminate their marriages. How barbaric!!!
Been seeing this status on fb for the past 3 weeks:
'So, let me get this straight…Charlie Sheen can make a "p0rn family", Kelsey Gramer can end a 15 year marriage over the phone, Larry King can be on divorce #9, Britney Spears had a 55 hour marriage, Jesse James and Tiger Woods, while married, were having sex with EVERYONE. Yet, the idea of same-sex marriage is going to destroy the institution of marriage? Really? Re-post if you are proud to support equal rights'
It's crazy that equal rights for gays isn't a given in the usa. It hasn't led to a degeneration of society or affected the institution of marriages between heterosexuals in the uk. I don't know why people are so scared of these marriages in usa. It's not a bad thing
"So, let me get this straight…Charlie Sheen can make a “p0rn family”, Kelsey Gramer can end a 15 year marriage over the phone, Larry King can be on divorce #9, Britney Spears had a 55 hour marriage, Jesse James and Tiger Woods, while married, were having sex with EVERYONE. Yet, the idea of same-sex marriage is going to destroy the institution of marriage? Really?"
This is actually why I get annoyed. How do some people end up being SO passionately pissed off about gay marriage or homosexuality in general, but yet see all this other stuff going on but yet sweep that under the rug. How do you justify that? What… at least all that stuff isn't as bad since everyone involved is heterosexual?
It really makes the church look like hypocrites (well actually… they ARE being hypocrites) and that really what my real issue is with the Church. I just don't get why homosexuality is always looked at as the ULTIMATE sin.
"‘So, let me get this straight…Charlie Sheen can make a “p0rn family”, Kelsey Gramer can end a 15 year marriage over the phone, Larry King can be on divorce #9, Britney Spears had a 55 hour marriage, Jesse James and Tiger Woods, while married, were having sex with EVERYONE. Yet, the idea of same-sex marriage is going to destroy the institution of marriage? Really? Re-post if you are proud to support equal rights’
"Judging people based on ancient book whose authors thought it was cool to stone adulterous women and nail people to a cross seems a bit ass backwards and denying them basic rights seems even more ludicrous."
I completely agree. Marriage is a civil right that we should all be afforded, the justification behind denying this right to homosexuals is ludicrous to me. I think of all people Black people should be in support of gay marriage because we as a people know what its like to be denied basic civil rights.
There was actually a highly regarded Black reverend named Peter John Gomes (a fellow Kriolou) who was openly gay and he pointed out that the Bible has been used to morally justify a number of things such as slavery, oppression of women, racism, anti-Semitism, and homosexuality and that we need to look closer at who is feeding us these interpretations of morality that is supposedly coming from "The Good Book". The main tenants of Christianity are love and tolerance, we are all sinners and all sin is equal.
I personally think that religion has no place in government and that basic civil rights should be afforded to everyone as long as they are not infringing on the civil rights of others. Banning same sex marriage is so Anti-American to me.
defintiely agree w/ your point from a fellow Kriolou…Viva Amilcar Cabral
gotta agree w/ your point. People should dig deeper and truly understand the Bible before passing judgment. Thee are countless stories where Kings would change the interpretation to fit what he wanted his followers to believe.
Fellow Kriolou…Viva Cabo Verde, Viva Amilcar Cabral
oh yay CV love 😀
I do believe gay marriage should be legal. Marriage, in general, needs to be defined as a union between a heterosexual couple or homosexual couple. Christians who denounce homosexuality need to also vehemently denounce all other sins stated in the Bible. The inconsistencies and hypocrisies of many Christians give churches a bad reputation. It is not my job to play the role of God. Northern California (San Francisco in particular) and Southern California (West Hollywood in particular) is as gay as gay gets, yet Californians can’t make a solid decision on the ballot. Gay marriage is not legal now, but I can guarantee it will be in the future.
I don't know where I stand on gay marriage,but I do know you shouldn't be allowed to a,persecute someone because of who he/she chooses to have sex with,who also chooses to have sex with them,and b,use religion as a foundation for that persecution. They're human,you're human,we all get human rights. Someone should start stoning hetero naysayers jus for fun,see how YOU feel being the downtrodden minority in a parallel universe lol jk
All this marriage talk the last week or so has me dizzy as hell… im not thinkin my marriage right now lol, but on a serious note i agree with madscientist7, if gay people want to get married let them… it doesn't bother me.
"Judging people based on ancient book whose authors thought it was cool to stone adulterous women and nail people to a cross seems a bit ass backwards and denying them basic rights seems even more ludicrous."
That pretty much sums up my point of view too. If gay people want to get married all I have to say is better them than I.
I say let them be allowed to get married if they want to. Let God judge them when it's time..In the meantime, they should be granted the right to marry.
I don't know if the church should support Gay marriages…but, they should be allowed to marry in a civil ceremony.
I believe gay marriage should be legal. As much as we talk about separation of church and state in other areas the moral aspects of the church are regularly accepted as reasons against gay marriage.
I see no valid legal reason why homosexual couple shouldn't be married. Aside from the legal reasons it doesn't bother me in the least. I don't spend my time trying to tell someone how to live their lives. If that is what makes them happy good.
Looks around the room…. welp The Black sheep I am today
As stated before, I am against homosexuality and Gay Marriage. Blame it on my conservative upbringing, traditional Southern Family roots or whatever it may be, But I'm not going to sit here and pretend to be this "progressive". Even with having homosexuals in my family who I love (different that like).
Marriage has always been a blessed union Under God between a Man and a Woman. I view marriage in a very high light and think those who truly enter it under the right conditions are favored by God.
Am I sinner?yes, so is everyone who lives and breathes each day on this Earth, so I'm not going to let the title of 'hypocrite' dismay my beliefs. I will continue to push for heterosexual relationship and will never vote in favor of Gay Marriage.
& last but not least *like*
Kudos on your honesty. Granted I dont have the same viewpoint. I think that if people wanted marriage to be as sacred as they make it seen they want it to be then marriage would only be a religious ceremony and not able to be performed at a court house
"Marriage has always been a blessed union Under God between a Man and a Woman. I view marriage in a very high light and think those who truly enter it under the right conditions are favored by God."
I agree with you. Allowing gay marriage is really less about granting "equal rights" and more about changing the actual DEFINITION of marriage.
However, I also feel that us heterosexuals haven't really done right by marriage either, so I can see how a loving homosexual couple could be frustrated by the fact that they aren't allowed to marry when the people who ARE allowed to marry don't always do marriage justice.
What’s your take on gay marriage?
Who someone else marries has NOTHING to do with me. The fact that people make this their business when it has nothing to do with them is quite baffling. Homosexuals should have all the rights that heterosexuals have. I will not impose my beliefs on anyone and neither should anyone else. If God has a problem with it I'm sure he'll handle it accordingly.
Easy and obvious solution. The government doesn't marry anyone.
The reason g@ys want to get married is for the legal benefits (insurance, filing joint taxes, hospital visitation rights, etc.). However, legality is not morality, and people often confuse the two. Marriage is a religious institution. The state has no business marrying anyone because it's out of their jurisdiction.
So the answer is ridiculously simple. You want to get married, you go to the church, mosque, synagogue, wherever, and that house of worship will or will not marry you based on their beliefs. So if a Baptist church refuses to marry gays, but a Episcopalian church will, then the same-$ex couple would go to the Episcopalian church if they desperately want to be "married". But no one, not even hetero$exual couples, gets any legal benefits for this.
If you want all the current legal benefits of marriage, then you go to the courthouse, whether you are g@y or straight, and get a civil union. If you have a civil union, then you can file taxes together, jointly hold property, etc. Everyone's happy, no need to cry about rights, no need to make people compromise their religious beliefs.
This is just one more reason I'm a libertarian. The government screws up everything it's involved in.
I wrote a post on my personal blog called "My Radical Solution to the Same Sex Marriage Debate" and in it… what Hugh has said above was my essential fix.
The government marries nobody – gives everybody Civil Unions, and then if you wanna get married you go to whatever place of worship you rock with. And done.
*goes to check out libertarian views & such*
Don’t have much to add today and although I'm not a libertarian, I agree with Hugh and Most on this one.
I'm GLAD I came here late, but this idea sounds WAVY…
Give these guys a medal…
Now if only someone with enough INFLUENCE can carry it out…
Hmm… this is all actually a really good idea…
(Frequent reader, but sporadic responder).
Over here, north of the border, gay marriage is legal.
Now, after reading some of the commets above, I'm a bit hesitant to say the following, but I'd be remiss if I didn't open up here.
I'm straight, but fully support LGBT rights, especially to get married. I'm also Catholic. I'm also a teacher. I'm saying this only to add context of what I'm saying.
The concept of marriage in its origins, was always a civil union to unify families, to increase the tithe and wealth of both parties involved. The sanctity of marriage as a religious sacrament was a notion the Church infused so that people would use their marriage as a public commitment/testament to their faith.
Marriage and matrimony are two separate concepts. I know many people will argue that people of LGBT orientation would like to get married simply to earn basic legal common-law benefits as healthcare benefits, joint filing, etc, as mentioned by another poster. Yes, but hell, people who care for adult children, or children who care for adult parents, would love these civil benefits too. To say that this is the only reason LGBT persons want to o get married is to invalidate the authenticity of their feelings.
I have been married. I value marriage as an institution, and although I am sometimes jaded, I have seen many strong marriages where faith comes alive and brings so much to others. But I can't imagine that heterosexuals have the monopoly on the transforming powers of real love. I have several friends who are homosexual, many of whom have been in stable, monogomous and loving relationships for decades.
I have students who are gay. They fall in love. They are no less of a person, nor can I ever imagine that they are less deserving to one day be in a relationship that is legally recognized.
As for the Church's stand on this, they'll come around. Its an ongoing dialogue in Canada. Hell, the Chuch just admitted in this century that they were wrong about Galileo, so I'm not expecting a 24hour turn-around.
SmartCat: "I know many people will argue that people of LGBT orientation would like to get married simply to earn basic legal common-law benefits as healthcare benefits, joint filing, etc, as mentioned by another poster. Yes, but hell, people who care for adult children, or children who care for adult parents, would love these civil benefits too. To say that this is the only reason LGBT persons want to o get married is to invalidate the authenticity of their feelings."
What does this mean? How does not being able to marry "invalidate the authenticity of their feelings"? How does the government authenticate how someone feels? Is government their god that they are just trying to please? I'm not saying homo$exuals don't genuinely love each other. I don't think too many people would argue that. My point is the government shouldn't be in the marriage business period.
As for the Church’s stand on this, they’ll come around. Its an ongoing dialogue in Canada. Hell, the Chuch just admitted in this century that they were wrong about Galileo, so I’m not expecting a 24hour turn-around.
Ummm, you just might want to research this a little further. Here's a start: it wasn't Galileo, but Copernicus, who first formulated a detailed theory of heliocentrism, and the church didn't bother him. I also note, Galileo was a Christian.
First time poster here. I’ve been checking out the site the past week or so but this is the first topic where I’ve felt compelled to pos. As a Christian I find it very disconcerting people are so willing to disregard the Bible as just some book written in a “Galaxy far far away.” I mean this book really holds value to a lot of people. Just because it doesn’t fit into your views doesn’t mean you should throw shade. As much as you want Christians to respect your right to NOT believe in God, we expect the same respect. Every time you have a smart remark about the good book you’re a bigger hypocrite than the Christians you so adamantly oppose. (stepping off my soapbox)
I don’t agree with homosexuality. It’s an abomination in the sight of the Lord. God didn’t make man to lie with man. That’s what the book says and that’s what I believe. However, the sins of others don’t affect my salvation. Every homosexual will have to answer before the Lord the same way I will. I may disagree with their lifestyle, but I believe they deserve all the rights reserved for anyone else who is a member of the human race. I’m adamantly opposed to Christians treating them like lepers. What we sometimes forget is God still loves them. They were made in his image the same way we were. I believe if Christ walked the earth today he would treat them with the same love as the tax collectors, prostitutes, lepers, and other downtrodden people he associated himself with. No sin is greater than any other sin. If a homosexual repents for his sin he will be forgiven just like a murderer, liar, ect. God’s forgiveness doesn’t come with conditions.
I have no problem with a homosexual couple being married in a civil union, but I don’t think the Church should recognize or support Gay marriage. It is something that is doctrinally different from the precepts the Church was built upon. The Church shouldn’t change its view on homosexuality in the same way it shouldn’t start saying idolatry is now ok. The Church doesn’t need to change with the times because the message of God remains constant. It’s the same message that was given to Jacob, Solomon, preached by Jesus, spread by John, and adhered to by Martin Luther King. For that reason, the Church must not change its stance based on outside influence nor must it persecute those who are homosexual. God LOVES EVERYONE IN SPITE OF THEIR SINS… That’s my two cents.
You just summed up my views.
I am not against gay marriages every deserves basic human rights, but i think the church should be kept out of it, The bible is a Holy Book, and disregarding it like its nothing even though i share your point seeing as you do not understand my beliefs is still offensive.
Christianity frowns on homosexuality, God frowns upon it too, if gays want to get married a civil union should be done, leave the church out of it.
*throws a $20 in the collection plate*
I thought this was a well-rounded post. You stated your piece without attacking the other side, homosexuals in this case, and I find that rare when a lot of "Christians" have this argument/debate.
Well said, sir.
dope comment. I agree with all of this…
(Oh, I'm really sorry about the length of my earlier comment. Too much coffee.)
Who's to say that Gay people won't be better at marraige than we are? Heterosexual's certainly don't have it right. I wish them the best of luck with that particular institution.
From an anthropological standpoint, there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that even if we collected data on homosexual marriage, they would have the same divorce rates, infidelity, and all the other problems with marriages that heterosexual people have. I don't think an argument about how straight people screw up is valid. Homosexual marriages would screw up too.
The can do whatever they want, just don't call it "marraige". Marraige is a heterosexual union.
Yeah das how I feel.
Wooooow, great post RCLS! I love it when we address the gay issue in our culture because we're so uncomfortable with it. I have a family member who voted for Bush because "he has morals and is against gay marriage". Da huh? How does gays getting married affect us? It doesn't. Fact is, it helps us. The more legal unions, the less promiscuity and all this AIDS people have associated with gays. I know some will say that being married doesn't stop raw dogging strangers but it helps. My point is, marriage is a good thing and we have no right to say who should/shouldn't get married. It doesn't mean you have to accept gays, it just means you recognize that ALL people have rights. Convicted murderers can get married in prison. I don't see Christians protesting that. Thou shalt not kill,etc. I'm so sick and tired of people using the bible as an excuse for everything now a days. People are just too hypocritical with it. Some sins are better than others? Puhleeez.
And Black people of all people should know what discrimination feels like. This government didn't even recognize us as people some decades ago and now we want to join arms with them to deny others rights? icant.
Lastly, laws will not stop homosexuality. It will not go away. The only thing it promotes is lying and undercover behavior which hurts us all in the long run.
Gay rights and civil rights are not the same thing.
Skin color is obvious to all. You don't chose to disclose it.
You can choose to be gay. Or change your mind and stop being gay.
You can not chose to stop being black.
I agree with you that being gay/Black is not the same thing in any way. Being Black is not a "sin" and our own birth right. My comparison was to show the similarities with discrimination in this country. As Blacks, we know what discrimination feels like so we shouldn't do it to others. If we do want to use the bible as an example, then use it all around and not just where we see fit or need an excuse to hate.
As far as choosing to be gay, do you know many gays? I'm not going to speak for them but I can tell you, all of the gay people I know, ALL of them have said they knew they were "different" since childhood. It leads me to believe that many are indeed born that way. They can't help being gay any more than you can help being straight. We can't choose who our bodies respond to. It's our chemical/hormonal make up. Some go through phases by choice but others are born gay in my opinion.
Gay rights and civil rights are the same thing, civil rights are supposed to be afforded to all citizens, gays included.
I think when black people hear "Civil Rights", they think we own that sh*t. Civil Rights are afforded to all people, it just so happened at the time that white people weren't really feeling the idea of us having basic rights. Skin and sexual orientation are two separate issues, but in both instances, the root problem is discrimination. You can't pick and choose what is OK to discriminate against.
We need the like button back. Thanks.
*exits stage left to go manually like some comments*
I'm cool with civil unions. Not with gay marriage. What if somebody came along and said, "For now on Jesus and Mohammed are the same person. When you go to church you can pray to Jesus or Mohammed."
My point is, if marraige has been defined in your church one way for thousands of years….why would you let someone change it?
Now me personally, I don't like that the government endorses marriage over unmarried life. What gays are really fighting for is all the benefits and tax breaks that married people.
I'm not gonna lie, I was happy the gay marriage bill got shot down in Maryland last week. I see what becoming a "gay friendly" state has done to places like DC and Atlanta. I wouldn't want my neighborhood to change like many of those places have.
Question: if gay's were allowed to marry in your state, they would all move there, take over and do what exactly? I'm just curious to know your fear of living amongst gays. You do know that they are a very small percent of the population? I have white neighbors that don't want me living here. I'm sure they think Blacks might take over in this neighborhood. I don't want to do the same to gays.
I'm not sure if you are in a major city or not. But I can tell you that when city's become gay friendly they swarm in like locust….which leads to gentrification. Gays are usually wealthy whites with no kids and plenty of disposable income. They are usually the first phase of gentrification. I have no desire to see a Starbucks on every corner and corny hipsters living next door to me.
I live 20 mins outside of Miami (2nd largest gay population) and I can tell you that majority of Miami's problems are not with gays. lol Heterosexuals are causing enough issues. I rather have a few Starbucks than meth labs. Btw, the nations largest HIV population is in DC which is predominantly Black, heterosexual and Christian. Just a fyi.
DC is a black city but barely. And it has a SIGNIFICANT gay population.
But like I said. Increase in the gay population is almost always a precurser to gentrification. I know this surprises some people….but many black people that live in black neighborhoods choose to live their precisely because it is a black neighborhood. I have no desire to see my neighborhood gentrified.
When people make that comment about DC and HIV is the most uninformed ignorant statement they could have ever made. And i'll tell you why and I hope this settles this…
1) DC is home to the largest AIDS research center in the country. NIH. If you had HIV/AIDS, you'd make your way to DC too. Lots of great programs, experimental and otherwise proven for helping those with HIV live longer and normal lives.
2) DC has a considerably larger homeless population than other cities. With that said, because of the hard work everyone in this city, we have done a tremendous amount of work in testing and diagnosing our homeless population. Most cities don't care.
3) Washington Hospital Center has some of the best physicians in the country for HIV treatment and medicine.
With that said, keep in mind that there's a reason why people with HIV come to DC. It's not because everyone is willy nilly slanging dingaling around this joint. Also, maybe we should be applauded for our testing practices. I can almost guarantee you that there is another city in the US with a bigger problem than DC and they just don't know it. There's a reason why you see the tag, "diagnosed with HIV." It means they went in and got tested.
Please don't take my comment to mean that you can be less safe or that the high population of those with the disease is not a reason for concern. I'm just shedding some light on something that people like to throw out there that makes no sense.
Gentrification is typically supported by those who are outside of suburban life, which includes wealthy unmarried professionals of every color and sexual preference, artists and performers. Married people and/or people with children tend not to live in gentrified areas, so same sex marriage wouldn't necessarily cause an increase in gentrification. And not all gays are wealthy enough to afford to live in those areas, many are working class and poor and *gasp* Black! So they could possibly feel the same as you do about preserving Black communities in the inner city.
I think that you are stereotyping the gay community and using the same rhetoric that whites used when they were trying to keep us out of their communities. Be careful how you justify your opinions because the law is, or rather should be all encompassing and when you deny people their rights it is a very slippery slope.
I'm glad you brought up those points, I think that DC gets a bad rep because of its high HIV population but people assume, including me, that it got that way because everyone is slangin around raw. Now that I am better informed I see DC is a whole new, and much better light.
I hear you Dr. Jay and I am far from ignorant on HIV stats. I can tell you that DC is very similar to Miami. We rank #2 in the country (Atlanta is close). What makes DC unique is that the numbers are significantly higher than Florida and even parts of Africa. Some argue that the HIV numbers are high due to the large number of immigrants like Africans, Islanders, etc. I don't necessarily agree with it because the studies are flawed. Some say it's due to the large young minority population as we are representing 85% of all new cases. And here's a scary thought: Whites get tested 5x more than we do, so the fact that we represent the core of those numbers means that there are MANY infected Blacks out there who don't know they're infected. No matter what the reason, my point was gays aren't our biggest problems right now. They represent a small part of the population. If we were all about moral issues, we would focus on our reckless behavior as a whole and not so much what gender we sleep with. We need to prioritize our issues.
I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm gonna assume you don't own your home, because if you did, you'd be on the welcoming committee when the moved into your community. Say it with me…gays are good for property value. Property value is good for home value. Home value is good for you.
I own my home. I also like my property taxes right where they are.
My favorite line from Mystic River…."What this town needs is a good crime wave….get rid of all the yuppies."
Seriously….it always amazes me how gentrifiers assume there presence is what we've all been waiting for.
Seriously, if I wanted to live in an overpriced home in a gay neighborhood I would move to DC…….No gay marriage in Maryland.
Well…that's what happens when you go out on a limb.
That being said, the idea of the huge gay invasion still seems a bit overboard to me.
I also think there is a strong argument to be made for gay sex, at least between males, being bad for you.
I used to work in a pharmacy. Trust me their are some things about gay sex they don't exactly advertise.
Look….I'm sure cocain feels great. But in the long run it is bad for you.
I don't think there is a doctor in the world that would tell you shoving something in your rectum repeatedley is good for your body.
So what's wrong with sayin gay sex is not a good thing for your body. Everything that feels good is not good for you. That's why we practice restraint.
I think people who are opposed to homosexuality would do better to drop the Bible argument and argue on these grounds. It is abuse of the body.
Good point, but who are we to tell people they can't do what they want with their own bodies? As Ice Cube said on Check Yo Self, "big d!cks up yo a$$ is bad for yo health", but if we are not allowing g@y marriage from a "it's bad for your body" perspective, that would cause us to legally do away with everything from alcohol to fatty food.
That's the problem with "dropping the Bible" in a society that received its moral direction from the Bible. You can start logically justifying all sorts of things.
LOL @ Ice Cube the homophobe. "Now your name is just twan."
Nah I wasn't brining that up as an argument to discriminate or not allow civil unions. Just as an argument against the lifestyle in general.
I'm not jumping on you but why do you care about their bodies so much? We all do things that aren't "good" for our bodies. We abuse our bodies everyday with what we eat, drink, etc. So their butts may get stretch out 😉 lol how does that affect you?
What would be the argument against two females marrying? They are still gay and not abusing their bodies in the same manner….
I agree. Not the same argument.
Boo to marriage in general, but to each his own.
"My religion does not support homosexuality, but I do. I was asked why I was supporting and marching with the homosexuals in parades, when according to the church, homosexuality is a sin. I responded that God gave people free will. God gave people the right to choose – even to choose sin. That's why there is a heaven and a hell. So I will fight for people to have the right to go to hell if that's what they choose." Al Sharpton
This quote sums it up for me. I am a Christian so I do believe it may be wrong (idk!). But then again (bibically) so is fornication… and I have the RIGHT to fornicate, drink til I get drunk and worship false idols.
Let them get married!
“My religion does not support homosexuality, but I do. I was asked why I was supporting and marching with the homosexuals in parades, when according to the church, homosexuality is a sin. I responded that God gave people free will. God gave people the right to choose – even to choose sin. That’s why there is a heaven and a hell. So I will fight for people to have the right to go to hell if that’s what they choose.” Al Sharpton
Quite a succint summary of libertarian ideology from a surprising source. God gave you the right to do pretty much whatever you want in this life, so who am I to say someone can't do something, as long as it doesn't affect me.
Equal rights. No one gets married by government.
Good Post son.
I agree with hugh and Most on this.
Nothing really more to add, but will check the commentary!
This is a really good post.
"Marriage has always been a blessed union Under God between a Man and a Woman."
Always is a long time, especially considering Christianity has only been around about 2000 years or less. Hindus have been getting married way longer than Christians, and their Gods are very different from the Christian God. So this comment is immensely ignorant.
"The can do whatever they want, just don’t call it “marraige”. Marraige is a heterosexual union."
According to who? This comment is discriminating against gays and lesbians. You're basically saying, well, as long as they aren't having exactly the same thing straight people are having, as long as there's a difference in the way they are treated, I'm ok with it. That's exactly why many gays and lesbians are NOT ok with "just" civil union; it means they are still discriminated against. It still means they aren't "worthy" of everything straight people are worthy of.
I don't believe in God, Jesus, or the Bible, yet in the States I'd be allowed to marry, but gays are not. I think we have it all backwards when we tell other people what to do based on our religion or view of the world. I have respect for religious people, I'm not advocating them to believe what I believe or do things based on my beliefs, and I think it's highly unfair that in American society I'm told what to do based on a belief I don't share.
The Church has the right to not support gay marriage, and I understand that. But the State doesn't have the same right. Separation of Church and State right? … I wish.
three things we will never see in our lifetime,
1) The Bills win a Super Bowl.
2) The Rapture.
3) SmartFox admits that she's wrong and walks away without the last word.
She'd have to be wrong first ;).
Thanks Vee. 🙂 I love it when they try to check me doe. I aint mad. lol
And you just proved my point by having the last word.
So at what point should the State NOT sanction something? There are many beliefs and lifestyles that will eventually want to be recognized legally. So when should we discriminate, when do we say NO?
I am not comparing being gay to any of the lifestyle below, however, these lifestyles DO exist and they too feel persecuted because of who and how they love. #justsaying.
What if pedophiles start wanting civil rights including the right to marry thier lovers?
What if beastiality became legal?
Polygamist want civil rights too.
I agree that there is double standard: gays are frowned upon whereas fornicating and adulterous heterosexuals are not.
I just wonder at what POINT do we as a country say NO that just should NOT be.
I don't know if ultimately I or my family would be affected by this. I just think it is a slippery slope when we start sanctioning things.
I don't know what to think about this because I too have sinned and fallen short (lol), but once I repent (to turn from a sin FOREVER) I won't have to leave my husband/wife because of it.
We all know that God loves EVERYBODY that's not the point. But don't think for one minute that he won't punish you IN LOVE as well. Someone being gay does not affect ME personally, but it may start an unwelcomed trend of other unpopular lifestyles.
So should the pedophiles and people who like doing objects/animals be given freedoms to create a civil union as well, if so WHY NOT?
Objects/animals and children (I believe this is who you're referring to as a pedophiles "lover") do not have the power to consent to civil unions.
"So should the pedophiles and people who like doing objects/animals be given freedoms to create a civil union as well, if so WHY NOT?"
Children are not of age to consent, so pedophiles are SOL.
Objects and animals are property, and if you own the property, you should be able to do with it what you wish as long as it doesn't affect someone else. So someone can have at it with the puppies, sheep, blow-up dolls, cucumbers, Jell-O, or whatever else, if they wish.
Of course, this is all from a legal perspective.
"Children are not of age to consent, so pedophiles are SOL"
Yeah this is true TODAY, but just as all rights have been fought for and some won overtime, whose to say this one can't be overturned.
My question is still unanswered, what IF they did want those rights, and begins to fight for them…what then?
BTW, women and black people were once considered property/chattel and that changed as well…
Good point, Mrs. Bacon, so I have to ask this first before I answer the question: are you asking legally or morally?
"BTW, women and black people were once considered property/chattel and that changed as well…"
Couldn't that arguement also be used to say why homosexuals should be allowed to get married?
@klm….exactly that is my point…that things can and do change. That argument can be used for ANYTHING most deem immoral and illegal…so where is the line drawn was my question.
This is referring to the legal standpoint. We cannot legally do anything to morally penalize anyone (thank goodness).
Beef Bacon: "@Hugh
This is referring to the legal standpoint. We cannot legally do anything to morally penalize anyone (thank goodness).
OK. Legally, my previous comment still applies at the current day and time. Children are off limits and objects and animals are fair game.
The law can change, and the law is different in different countries. In the US, the 13th amendment prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude, and the 14th has the equal protection clause, but laws can be overturned. So in the future, g@y marriage could become acceptable, but pederasty, polygamy and beastiality could become acceptable too, and blacks and women could legally become chattel again, depending on how the law changes. It depends on the times, the capriciousness of the people, or if the law or government itself is overturned.
Morally speaking, the actions we are allowed to do and not do are a little more stable:
Matthew 24:35 – Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
Pedophiles do something against the will of another. Whether or not the child expresses the denial, it is there, and any sane adult knows it. So what you're implying is that one day we will morally accept rape and we will advocate marriage between the rapist and the raped, despite the fact that the raped will most likely not want to be married. In other words your reasoning is invalid and highly inappropriate.
Actually raping an animal IS illegal, falls under the "cruelty to animals" branch and can even lead to jail time (though most likely won't since we have little to no respect for animals). Objects you can do whatever you want with, but again, with both animals and objects, one party of marriage will not be able to express consent, so your question is again highly inappropriate and invalid, and doesn't translate at all to the question of gay marriage.
The only part of your comment that makes sense is polygamy, which in some parts of the world and even the country is legal. Though I think gay issues and polygamy are very different (marriage between two people vs. marriage between many), I personally wouldn't care if polygamists were able to marry everywhere, providing of course that all parties (ie. old wife/husband & new wife/husband) agree.
Vee: "Pedophiles do something against the will of another. Whether or not the child expresses the denial, it is there, and any sane adult knows it."
Sure, go tell that to the ancient Greeks. Don't think the moral standards of today are not fluid.
"So what you’re implying is that one day we will morally accept rape and we will advocate marriage between the rapist and the raped, despite the fact that the raped will most likely not want to be married. In other words your reasoning is invalid and highly inappropriate."
My reasoning is flawless and the validity is undeniable; history bears not only bears it out, but it's playing out in real time. As Christianity's influence wanes in Europe, you're seeing $ex slavery become a problem there. As it weakens here in the US, now Christians are fighting to keep marriage defined as a man and woman. People think they can do away with Christianity, then think the civility it brings can remain without it. It will for a while, but if you cut a chicken's head off, it will run around for a while before it dies.
"Actually raping an animal IS illegal, falls under the “cruelty to animals” branch and can even lead to jail time (though most likely won’t since we have little to no respect for animals). Objects you can do whatever you want with, but again, with both animals and objects, one party of marriage will not be able to express consent, so your question is again highly inappropriate and invalid, and doesn’t translate at all to the question of gay marriage."
I guess you have a point here in the first part of your comment, depending on the animal. But again, the reasoning is not invalid, as a simple changing of the law will make it legal, since animals are legally property, and the law would change if enough people demanded it. In fact, my comment isn't the problem. Your comment is not only invalid, but it is a category error: how could an animal or inanimate object give consent if it wanted to?
"The only part of your comment that makes sense is polygamy, which in some parts of the world and even the country is legal. Though I think gay issues and polygamy are very different (marriage between two people vs. marriage between many), I personally wouldn’t care if polygamists were able to marry everywhere, providing of course that all parties (ie. old wife/husband & new wife/husband) agree."
I wouldn't care if polygamists could marry everywhere, and I don't care what gays do either. My point from the beginning is government should not be marrying people any more than government should be baptizing people.
I wasn't actually answering to your comment as I felt you didn't compare gays to pedophiles like I felt the original commenter. But since you brought it up…
Humans evolve. Evolving means we move forward, and we rarely move backward unless there are exceptional circumstances. That's why I don't think using Ancient Greece as an example works. There are places in the world today that think nothing of marrying a 9-year-old girl to a 50-year-old man and them having children as soon as possible, there are places where a woman will be killed if she's not a virgin on her wedding night. I'm saying that I find it very, very hard to believe that these practises will become legal here nor that anyone in their right mind will advocate them (unless they are blinded by their religion) to become legal in the next 50-100 years. It is possible, anything is, but like I said humans usually tend to move forward in their thinking, not backward. I also don't see legalized slavery making it's way back.
As for this… "As Christianity’s influence wanes in Europe, you’re seeing $ex slavery become a problem there." You think the problem of sex slavery only exists on Europe, not in the US at all? It actually exists all over the world. http://socyberty.com/activism/statistics-of-moder…. I honestly don't think it's about religion or lack thereof, I think it's just bad people doing bad things to underprivileged people.
But since you brought religion up, go and read this blog http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christina… and especially the study it refers to.
Religion can be an excellent thing in a person's life, but please don't try to tell me that not having one is going to corrupt and demoralize people when you know as well as I do that there are as many evil Christians, Hindus, Muslims, etc. out there as there are atheists. Bad people are bad people.
I realize I didn't answer the questions.
"What’s your take on gay marriage?"
Neither g@ys nor hetero$exuals should be able to legally marry.
"Should the Clergy, particularly the Black Clergy support gay marriage?"
Not if they want to remain a part of the clergy. If you are representing God, then represent God. Had the early church gave into the societal whims of their day, buttfcuking teenage boys and having $ex with a temple prostitute would be acceptable. The Bible is quite clear on its stance on homo$exuality; that's God's word, that's what the clergy should teach and preach, not the ever-mutating secular perspective of the day.
Are Civil Unions an adequate compromise?
That's all the government should have the power to do.
I just feel like… people are too wishy washy for me. Like if you gonna believe something you gotta believe it and stick with it. I think that most of the churches that allow homosexuality in their church make that decision based on revenue and not principle. That's how I feel about this marriage topic too. Like i'm not trying to front the dude but Obama attended a church for years with a Pastor who believes that homosexuality is an abomination. But President Obama thinks it's ok? Nah son, keep it real. You can't be going to church for years led by a man with such a strong position on a topic like that and be like oh I disagree with him on that point right there and oh yeah.. the race joint too. (Because there's no way in the world that ever came up before until he ran for President.)
I'm just looking at all those people who grew up thinking homosexuality was a sin and then they get older and find out you can get killed for saying you don't like homosexuality or their right to marry. Switching their tune, that's ain't right. Reminds me of Christians who only believe in God because of eternal life, not because it's the right way to live.
PS – Yes, I did just say, I wasn't trying to front the President, like he was a regular person. I got pictures of him smoking weed, I can do that.
PPS – I think homosexuality ain't up for me to decide on, I always felt this way since I was born. It was one of my boys who didn't take to girls growing up, everybody thought he was gonna grow up to be a crossdresser. I didn't let it affect my relationship with him. I was just like, it's cool that's what works for him. Plus, like at a young age I peeped that Superman was gay and he was the sh*t. Real talk, Bruce Wayne was banging mad chicks and Superman was chasing after one broad when ALL the chicks in the world wanted to be with him. I knew something wasn't right, but I still thought he was the best superhero.
What is this blasphemy you speak? Superman isn't g@y! Clark Kent was raised in Smallville, KS, he just had a very conservative upbringing. That's why he was only chasing Lois, he was just doing what he thought was right. He respected women. Bruce Wayne lived in Gotham and came from money, so of course he's going to live the playboy lifestyle.
Just because he wears red Speedos over his blue tights doesn't mean he's g@y. Aquaman on the other hand, I don't know. He's married, but I think he's on the down low.
I thought Bruce was the gay one. Didn't he have something going on with Batboy?
Bruce is questionable. He kept Robin (Dick Grayson) around, and soon as he got grown, he replaced him with another young kid as a new Robin. I guess the courts looked the other way because Batman did so much to stop crime in Gotham, but I think they had a Greek bath house thing going on in Wayne Manor.
I think I'm commenting on this way too seriously…
Went to threewaystotakeit for the first time in a while…got sad and found myself here.
I think it's hypocritical for "the land of the free" to deny gay marriage. This country has always had a problem with freedom, equality, justice etc. So it isn't shocking but it is shameful. As far as the government is concerned gay marriage should be legal. With that being said, I think it is as ridiculous to expect religion to change. Religions are allowed to believe what they want and that's another great liberty Americans enjoy. So legally and as far as government is concerned any consenting adult should be allowed to marry any other consenting adult but you shouldn't expect to do it in a catholic church.
Equal rights for all is what I say. It was very amusing to read some of the comments. Do really see why
Equal rights for all is what I say. It was very amusing to read some of the comments. Do not really see why bestiality and child abuse found their way into this conversation. Anyone with an interest in history, would find it interesting to read cases like Dread Scott amongst other episodes , where members of the church are arguing about where it is right to enslave Africans, whether Africans have souls, whether Africans have intelligence. It's great to see the subjects of this debate rise up to use the arguments against others. "we want free!" Maybe freedom to think. But let's try not to abuse it.