Comments on: Homosex

By: sphinxfalcon

sphinxfalcon — Sun, 09 Apr 2006 01:52:24 +0000

i agree with what youre saying, as i believe in a holy marriage, no matter your gender…some of my best friends are homosexual but i treat them no different, and am happy to educate others. i am glad yuo wrote this article, to try and spread a decent, unbiased opinions. kudos to you for that…ps. i am 16 and still in high school, so i hope youll forgive me if ive said anything out of place.

By: hamid

hamid — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

mon point de vue pour ca (homosexuel-man)est qlq chose ki est ainé comme on peut dire aussi aquis ca depent education

By: Orchid

Orchid — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Here Here!

By: Funkalicious

Funkalicious — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Nicely said.

By: Richard

Richard — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

But marriage isn’t just about *rights*. It’s also about obligations. It means being the first one your partner thinks about after an emergency. Ignore the legalities of marriage for a second and focus on the social penalty people get for “cheating” or getting a divorce or even not being a full partner in the marriage. How many celebrations are held when it comes to light that someone secretly had sex with someone who is not their spouse? How many celebrations are there for separations? How many times do people approvingly mention couples where the woman does all the housework while her jobless husband sits and watches TV? Marriage, in other words, is not a contract between two individuals but rather between a couple and the community. In return for legal and quasi-legal rights such as benefits and joint filing on tax returns, they agree to create a home and, sometimes (not always), a family. So then the argument becomes not just of granting legal rights to same-sex couples, but making them obligated to *be* a married couple.

By: Donna

Donna — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

I, too, have long since thought that marriage should be a church-only thing, and if you want the legal rights that a marriage currently gets you, that you should be required to get a civil union in addition.

That way, those who want to do the whole church thing can be married in the eyes of god and whatnot, and those of us who don’t give a damn can just get a civil union and be done with it. But those who get married in a church still need the civil union to get the legal part covered.

But Dev’s right, it’ll never happen.

By: -j.

-j. — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

I agree that this is a great thought in principle, but I also agree with Devon that it’s not practicable. (Geez, I have to disagree with someone…sorry, Mark!) The churches themselves will never give up that power, nor will churchgoers willingly give up the ability to be joined under God (whatever their faith). For many, a secular union is meaningless.

It’s a very difficult issue; perhaps I’m naive, but I’d like to think that things can change. It was not so long ago that homosexual ministers were a fantasy on par with unicorns, but VERY SLOWLY there has has been some movement on that front. I take that as a sign that someday there may be a society with a place for both religion and total acceptance (I loved that comment, by the way).

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Maybe it’s just because Im a big cynic, but when I first read that comment, I thought it said “there’s no way the churches will give up their right to sodomize marriages…

By: Devon

Devon — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

This has been my position for quite some time (since my contemporary moral issues class, at least), but it ain’t gonna happen. There’s no way the churches will give up their right to solemnize marriages.

I think the best we can hope for right now in this country is legalized same-sex marriage.

And boy, am I ever hoping.