As a Christian, I am having a hard time formulating my thoughts about same sex marriage. This is an explosive issue that encompasses religion, politics, current affairs, family and health and adult topics.

As stated above, I am a Christian and I believe that marriage is a religious institution created by God to bind one man and one woman for the purposes of procreation and to create a family union that is strong. Those who believe in God will recognize that the first marriage was between Adam and Eve in Genesis 2:24-25. All throughout history, marriage has been recognized as a union of one man and one woman. Most religions today still recognize marriage as a union of a man and a woman. Different cultures celebrate this union in differing ways and condemn homosexual unions.

My problem comes from the militant way in which advocates of same sex marriage force their views on the majority of society. They use our overcrowded court system to change laws in their favor. And when society makes clear that they want the institution of marriage defined as one man and one woman by making it a legal definition, advocates for SSM (same sex marriage) break the law and forcefully allow SSM unions to take place.(San Francisco 2004). Advocates of SSM try to simplify the issue by claiming all they want are the same rights and privileges that everyone else has. They already do. What they are trying to do, and are being successful at it so far, is to redefine marriage thereby lessening its value to society. And if you stand up to them and state your views, they label you as a homophob, right wing extremist. Anything to muddle the issue.

If you ask me, I would say that what you want to do in the privacy of your own home, is your business. If you want to form a union with someone of the same sex and share expenses and property, that is your business, not mine. I will not FORCE my views on you as I expect you not to FORCE your opinions on me. The benefits of freedom of religion. I will, however, staunchly stand up for the definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman. Legislators have already suggested a same sex union which would have accomplished what advocates claim that they wanted. By not accepting the SSU, advocated exposed their true goal, the destruction of the current definition of marriage.

Contrary to popular opinion, I do not hate homosexuals. I find their lifestyle distasteful and disgusting, but I do not hate the person nor do I wish ill will toward people of differing opinions. I'll bet that the majority of America feel similarly. As an American I will stand up for your rights, even ones that I disagree with. However, stop the name calling in the hopes of muddling the issue and stop the militant attacks on the law and on society.

Now if you want to discuss your opinions, you will have to write back.
Rich

Comments
on May 25, 2004
Marriage was created by god?  
on May 26, 2004
Advocates of SSM try to simplify the issue by claiming all they want are the same rights and privileges that everyone else has. They already do. What they are trying to do, and are being successful at it so far, is to redefine marriage thereby lessening its value to society.

First of all. They don't have all the same rights and privileges as everyone else, because they cannot legally share property and all that in the same way that a "heterosexual" married couple can. A lot of the 'Rights" that come along with marriage are still disallowed to them. Secondly, I don't at all agree that they are trying to lessen its value to society. You can't tell someone whether or not they love someone else. Would you marry someone you didnt love? Would you marry someone simply because God said that Man and woman should form a holy union for procreational purposes? If two men for example love eachother, and want to be married so be it. You cant discredit that.

Lastly, the thing I think that is important to realize.. and this goes for every situation in the world.. is that some people are not interested in certain things, or do not adhere to certain standards. The example I will give you is a recent one I used in light of political debate.. Some people just DO NOT care for politics.... Just as some people ARE NOT Christians and do not adhere to christian standards or teaching of the bible. To say condemn advocates of same sex marriage and say that they are trying to force their beliefs on everyone is absolutely absurd, because in turn you are forcing YOUR christian beliefs upon everyone else. As you said... you dont "hate" homesexuals.. it is just as I dont "hate" christians. I was not raised religious nor am I sure about my beliefs, but I do RESPECT people who have made that choice, who are devoutly religious and believe in god, and I would never go out of my way to argue that with them...
on May 26, 2004
Oops, that wasn't all supposed to be bolded, just the top part that you had written.
on May 26, 2004
I am a Christian

You may be, but not everyone in world are christian.

I will not FORCE my views on you as I expect you not to FORCE your opinions on me.


Exactly. But if you say that gays cannot marry each other, because you believe that marriage is a union between man and woman, then you ARE forcing them to see marriage as just a union between a man and a woman only.

Before you subtly call me gay, I am not one. I just believe that they can be gay if they want or need to be. Just let them fish in their water and you fish on your side. I feel that allowing gays to marry will NOT alter anything.

on May 26, 2004
My problem comes from the militant way in which advocates of same sex marriage force their views on the majority of society

yeah so-called conservatives who presumably wouldnt admend the constitution if there was another alternative arent proposing exactly that in a heavy-handed attempt to do just that in order to force their moral values on their fellow citizens. its the ssm advocates who must be doin that
on May 26, 2004
Rich,

I agree with your points in general. However, I feel you are a bit confused about how to define your points.

For example, if marriage is, as you say, an institution to bind one man and one woman for the purposes of procreation, your definition does not cover marriages between people where at least one of them isn't capable (for whatever reason) to procreate. If a definition of marriage should be limited to mixed marriages (one man, one woman), your definition cannot be used, unless you are willing to disallow marriages as described above.

On the other hand, such couples can adopt. But so could homosexuals.

Another point is that the word "marriage", regardless of how you feel about it, does NOT belong to Christianity or any other religion. It simply isn't your term to define.

What I think should be done is this:

Government should get out of the marriage business but merely register any two people who want to share responsibilities as such a union, using whatever name government sees fit (as this term is the government's to define). Any religion can then affirm this marriage/union/whatever under their own terms, if the couple choses to do that. A specific church can then define their own marriage (the marriage they offer for their believers) as "marriage" but cannot force any other church or institution to use a different word for their marriage.

And you see, this is the part where I agree with you. "Marriage", as defined by your religion agrees with how it is defined by mine. And I think this shouldn't be changed. But what on earth does that have to do with other people?