i’ve written a few posts about gay marriage and relationships and the arguments and controversies that unfortunately surround it all, and i thought i did a good job. but she did a better job.
i’m not good with the technology of reposting other people’s posts, so i’m just going to put the link here and hope you’ll go read it.
http://classywithatwist.wordpress.com/2012/09/15/of-natural-yearnings/
i’m sure there’s a better way to have done it, but it’s all i know.
brainsnorts inc. 
Hi Rich,
Thanks for the link. That was very well said and I’m glad it was said by someone who is gay and is living this issue. I totally agree. Ron
yeah, that’s what i felt. otherwise, it’s like listening to men debating the right to an abortion. well, sort of like that.
Thanks Rich. I just read that post and it was spot on. Now I have another great blogger to follow. 🙂
yes, she is great. but so are you. and all of us. most of us. a few of us.
Hi Rich. This is quite a controversial subject, but I think that if we really study it, it comes down to a confrontation between 20th century morality, and the post modern view of things. From the viewpoint of classywithatwist, the gay people are in the same situation as the Negroes in so far as they have been the victims of prejudice. However, there are other people who see human reproduction as something holy, and the commitment of two people to make children and raise them together in a family, as having a sense of sanctity. The institution of marriage is not normal. Cats and dogs don’t get married. If some people were to start demonstrating for the right of marriage for their dogs, many others would be offended. Because marriage is a religious tradition, that dedicates a holy commitment to the arrangement. Most of us, even oldsters like myself, believe in ‘live and let live’. If a boy likes boys more than he does girls, we have nothing to say about it. And what they do in their private bedrooms is none of our business. But when I am faced with a parade going down the street, in which sexual behavior is touted as having some great importance, it is an annoyance to me. Anyone can make a contract with anyone else, in so far as establishing right to mutual property, or the distribution of that property after death. Why insist that it is marriage? And if you’re going to insist, then you have to be ready for the reactions that will come in answer to the provocation. It is a bit like insisting that the image of Jesus Christ in a bottle of piss is art. There is no getting around the fact that such a piece of art is an insult to a lot of people, and a provocation. Some people think it’s necessary. Personally, I don’t.
I recall that. I wish more people did. Yes, it was provocative, and yes, Christians were quite upset, but when you juxtapose that with the reaction we’re currently seeing in the Islamic world over a film, I think it’s a powerful reminder of how people in a free society react to that which is distasteful.
Hi shimon. Yes, few things are more controversial. As for gays and negroes, yes, they’ve faced similar situations, but one difference is that if someone is both black and gay, well, they’ve got some extra discrimination coming their way. But what I can’t understand about this issue is how the opponents of gay marriage can imagine that their own lives will be damaged by such a thing. And if it violates something about their religion, then I wonder if they take the same opposition to people of other religions, because those other religions will go against their religion as well.
I’m greatly annoyed by the politicians against gay marriage because they believe it will ruin the sanctity of marriage. Seems to me that the heterosexuals have taken marriage on the road to ruin all by themselves.
In America, the gay marriage debate is a sham. Nobody cared about gay marriage until the insurance companies got involved, and they got involved because they did not want to have to cover the spouses of a gay employee. They don’t want to give those spouses any rights at all, and gay marriage would do that. So those insurance companies hired lobbyists to bend the ears of the politicians. The politicians only cared about their campaign contributions from the insurance companies, so they behaved like the hired hands they are and did their best to oppose it, but they put a spin on it that came from a religious ground, not an insurance company ground.
As for those idiots who deface things in the name of art, well, I’ve got no use for them at all.
Do you believe that this is a valid argument? This is what you teach your children and students? To say ‘he did it too’; to say, ‘he did it first’? To say the heterosexuals have made a ruin of marriage? Sorry I mentioned it.
oh, i’m not saying it’s a valid argument. i’m saying it’s an argument that is prevalent in america. i’m very glad you mentioned it.