My Opinion on the Whole Same-Sex Marriage Debate.

OK, let’s pretend that I’m not biased. (In fact, I’m not, but you might not believe me.) Let’s pretend that my relationship with another woman, Lady T, has nothing to do with my emotions toward same-sex marriage. (Again, it doesn’t, but you might disagree.)

I want to emphasize that these are my opinions. I don’t claim to know it all, to have studied it all, or even to have worked through it all myself. These opinions are based on my personal experience and how I was raised.

I have a fundamental conflict with government controlling the legality of marriage.

I also have an issue with religion dictating that marriage is strictly between a man and a woman. Let me repeat, religion.

The Bible, according to some religions the word of God, was written how long ago? Additionally, how many times was it translated JUST in writing? Let’s not even think about how each individual person reads and interprets the meaning behind the words in that book.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not downplaying the importance of the Bible or the words within it, I’m merely suggesting that understanding the book within the context in which it exists is important to consider.

I understand that God’s intention for marriage was for man to not be alone and to lead a life that takes a person’s soul to heaven. Essentially, a life partner who makes you the best version of yourself and brings you closer to God.

What a brilliant concept.

I don’t know about you, but I loathe being lonely. I do the most random, idiotic things when I’m lonely–because I’m not accountable, I don’t have a sense of loyalty, nor do I feel the need to be a good version of me, because who cares but me?!

Having a partner to share your life with is downright genius. Props to you, Big Guy, for thinking of us enough to guide us toward sharing ourselves with one another in order to be closer to you.

Having said all of that, please tell me where the government was mentioned? Additionally, where was ANY religious institution mentioned?

It wasn’t.

So forgive me for being so forthright about it, but what the hell?

WHY do we allow other people to tell us what’s right, just, and best for us?

It’s not “standard” or “traditional” for a woman to choose a woman for marriage, but that doesn’t make it wrong when it happens. Just like it’s not standard or traditional for 98% of the world’s population to earn a terminal degree, but we don’t take away the rights of the people who do so when they become doctors. I might be comparing apples to oranges here, but do you see my point? Just because something isn’t mainstream doesn’t make it wrong or against the word of God.

The reason same-sex union is so highly debated is because it makes some people feel uncomfortable.

If I was downright against everything that made me uncomfortable, I’d never wear pants, never sit next to someone who is eating, or, heck, why leave my house? I’m ALWAYS comfortable there.

My point is, same-sex marriage isn’t an abomination in the eyes of God. How could it be? So long as the union causes both souls to lift one another up closer to God, who cares what their anatomy consists of?

Did you know that eating shellfish is an abomination according to the straightforward interpretation of words in the Bible? In fact, it says so just a few passages before it talks of man lying with man. My point here is to understand the context in which these words were written. When the Bible was written, times were different. Shellfish consumption was thought to be an abomination. Women were property. See what I mean? Different times, peeps.

The point of all the scripture in the Bible, in my opinion, is to learn to be a good person. Whom you choose to spend your life with should be someone who supports you, loves you, gives openly to you, and, most importantly, forgives you. Who cares if that person’s anatomy is the same as your own? I sure don’t!

When Lady T and I wed*, it will be “legal” in the state we’re getting married in, but when we come home it won’t be. Frankly, I don’t care about that. I KNOW I’m committing to her. I KNOW my life is going to be spent dedicated to her. I don’t need the government to dictate that for me.

So guess what? We’re going to get married anyway. And I’ll never refer to my WEDDING as a commitment ceremony. We’re having a wedding; we’re getting married. God knows it, we know it, our families know it. And we’re all flipping jazzed about it!!

*This pertains to the legal ceremony we’ll have, not our actual wedding in December.

BLOGGER

Miss Tiara

Birthday:
May 17
Location:
Wichita
Wedding Date:
December 2012
Add a comment

comments

  1. Member
    knvprincess143 1036 posts, Bumble bee @ 6:21 am

    WOW it seems like a lot of people who want tolerance for all, are not being very tolerant with gummie310. Let’s face it; we all need to practice what we preach. It reminds me of one of my favorite quotes: “This year, or this month, or, more likely, this very day, we have failed to practice ourselves the kind of behavior we expect from other people.” ~C.S. Lewis

    I think that is great that people can stand for what they believe and we live in a GREAT country where we can so freely do just tahat. You all may harp on our government, but I challenge you to find a better a better system.

  2. Member
    psychocellochica 28 posts, Newbee @ 6:56 am

    @knvprincess143: What we have in the thread IS tolerance. No one has said to gummie that they can no longer be a part of WeddingBee or comment on the boards because of her position, and this discussion has stayed remarkably civil for this topic. Gummie and would undoubtably have the same opinion of the other “I disagree with what you believe.” Being tolerant and respectful does not mean accepting her beliefs or declining to challenge them with questions and discussion.

    But, just because I tolerate alternate viewpoints, doesn’t mean I have to allow them near me. Just as most “christians” (i use that term in quotations, because I do not believe that many people who claim the word do not live the word) wouldn’t invite an agnostic lesbian couple to close family events, I’m not going to invite someone to my wedding whose views on marriage think mine is less valid. I’ve already told a cousin that her use of gay slurs, and the fact that she was unapologetic about it, means that she will not be invited to our ceremony.

    And personally, I think our government is a fantastic idea. It has this wonderful clause that religion is supposed to be kept separate from the secular interests of the state. It has some trouble doing that sometimes, so I’m always ready to remind it and get it back on track!

  3. Member
    twistedlittlegirl 52 posts, Worker bee @ 9:49 pm

    This all boils down to interpretation. What some people state as fact is merely interpretation and opinion. The important thing here is that Miss Tiara tells us she is happy. And I am happy for her, because no human can deny that love is the hardest thing to find but also delicate, and easy to lose.

  4. Member
    sunkisthappy 198 posts, Blushing bee @ 8:57 am

    Great article. I agree completely. Individual churches don’t have to marry LGBTs, but the government has no excuse. We have separation of church and state for a reason.

    If you eat shellfish or object to the stoning of women who commit adultery, then you shouldn’t use the literal interpretation of the bible to discriminate against LGBTs by denying them the right to marry. Selectively following the bible in a way that reflects prejudice and homophobia is not my idea of what a “good person” would do.

  5. Member
    missmarchmommy 187 posts, Blushing bee @ 9:27 am

    I had an amazing uncle who was gay (he passed away) and right before he died he met the love of his life (tom) there relationship was so loving and amazing I wish he would have been able to get married before he died! I say if your human and love eachother then GET MARRIED!!! WHOOOOO

  6. Guest Icon Guest
    Kim, Guest @ 3:36 pm

    @gummie310@yahoo.com:

    I have a different take on the passage you are talking about and felt compelled to reply. I’m responding as a historian, not as a Christian or theologian, so bear that in mind.

    First of all, the reading suggests to me that the Bible does not condone same-sex sexuality, and even though I am a supporter of gay rights and gay marriage, it’s not my place to tell someone who believes in the Bible what they should and should not believe.

    Having said that, I would like to bring up a point of contention regarding that very passage, which is that the passage did not mean the same thing as written back then than it’s lay-interpretation today. First of all, when Paul speaks of what we would today refer to lesbian or gay sexuality, he isn’t speaking about lesbians or gays–homosexuality in its modern derivation doesn’t exist as a concept in the ancient world. What DID exist is people having sex with each other who were of the same gender–and usually, this was a custom among younger boys and older men as a practice related to political and social power in a hypermasculine sort of patriarchy. In Rome, women were expected to be monogamous in the sense that the legitimacy of their children could be called into question, but we do know that for both men (especially men) AND women monogamy was not a condition of marriage back then as it is today, and that sexual practices were much more fluid than we think of them today. Married women, for example, were sometimes serviced by female prostitutes because they couldn’t get pregnant that way–and it wasn’t seen as “lesbian” or “gay” to be doing so. Additionally, sex was commonly used as a tool for humiliation (so when Lot is called out in Sodom to allow other men to have sex with his male travelers (the angels), it’s not that the men knocking on his door are some kind of sex-crazed lunatics, it’s because public gang-sodomy was a common form of social punishment for cultural infractions back then.

    So, back to Paul–the passage is also (perhaps moreso) talking about the monogamy quotient as being important to Christian marriage because he was trying to establish a clear difference between how Christians should behave versus how pagan Greeks and Romans did. That’s why the context of those two verses deals with lust and “maliciousness” as a broader theme. In other words, it’s a stretch to conclude that Paul was talking about a monogamous relationship between two people of the same sex (as we think of homosexuality today) so much as he was condemning a common pagan sexual practice that was commonly connected with political corruption (and this was not a political world that was all that nice to Christians!) AND moreover, with adultery. In other words, it’s quite possible that he was condemning the practice because he saw it as leading to adultery, and it’s adultery that is the sin within the laws of a Christian marriage.

    Furthermore, there’s a huge body of literature on the fact that when Paul speaks of same-sex sexuality as “against nature” and when Leviticus speaks of it as an “abomination” the phrasing historically meant something closer to “against CUSTOM”–ie, it’s not necessarily un-natural to do something (which by the way, the idea of something as ‘human nature’ anyway is more of a modern concept), it’s not of the appropriate custom.

    Now, having said all that, I would still agree that the Bible doesn’t appear to be particularly supportive of gay sexuality, and if you are Christian, then you are free to observe that as the word of God and to not practice gay sexuality–AND if you are a church, you don’t have to offer the sacrament of marriage to two people who are practicing it. But, as an individual, it seems to me that out of the 7 or so passages in the Bible that OBLIQUELY reference same-sex sexuality versus the oh, thousands that talk about non-judgment and tolerance, you don’t really have any other course of action other than to not practice gay sexuality yourself. The idea of “well, I don’t have to condone it” is sort of a moot point–you don’t, but you’re still supposed to treat others with respect, generosity, and hospitality–not saying YOU don’t do that, but simply that I think that calling others names and picketing their weddings is and certainly engaging in types of violence is a few steps beyond abstractly “not condoning it.”

    And as far as your “marriage is a Christian concept” goes, it is and it isn’t. It’s existed before Christianity and in non-Christian countries. And here, in the US, marriage has a much broader cultural context than its Christian roots. And ask any of the ‘bees–gay or straight–the phrase “I’m married” or “I’m so and so’s WIFE” DOES carry with it a certain universal cultural weight that everyone (not just Christians) understands. Why shouldn’t gay people have the same right?

    No one (okay, well *I*) am not asking religious institutions to marry people they don’t want to–that’s their right as a private entity, in the same way that a Catholic church doesn’t have to marry me, not being Catholic myself or marrying one. However, I DO think that the STATE, of which gays are citizens of like everyone else, must. Technically, I think it would be much, much easier if we did things more like France–EVERYONE has to have a civil ceremony and you aren’t married in the eyes of the State if you don’t. If you CHOOSE to have a religious ceremony, then go ahead.

  7. Member
    Dr Pepper 122 posts, Blushing bee @ 2:23 pm

    I have to agree!
    When people bring up their religion it confuses me. This is a matter of government. We are supposed to have a society that puts the good of the people above all else.
    By the way, I don’t consider it “gay” marriage.
    Okay it’s two people,
    they love each other,
    they want to have babies together (they will have some roadblocks on this one but who doesn’t),
    they want to have a wedding with friends and family and be together forever.

    Sounds like plain old marriage to me. :)
    Why do we label it? Marriage is Marriage.

  8. Member
    sunkisthappy 198 posts, Blushing bee @ 8:01 am

    @Kim: Wow, lots of good information in there. Thanks :)

  9. Member
    hoosieratheart 6 posts, Newbee @ 3:46 pm

    I so enjoy when people preface their hate by saying “I have a friend/cousin/neighbor who is gay.” As if that makes the awful things that follow it somehow okay. And, gummie, if you’re going to argue against gay marriage, at least get your facts straight.

  10. Guest Icon Guest
    Robet, Guest @ 12:31 am

    Its disturbing to me to see the toilet place this country is going. gays getting married.. come on its a joke. Does seeing 2 guya with beards look good to you-you are sicj! Whenever I see a pair of them I just see them having anak sex.. sick what they do is immoral and dicusting. Next morons will want to mayy goats and sheep. . Gays are patheticpof course they believe ib free speech as you agree with them. I live in Ohio and we are infected here.. they are on a fast trip to hell!!

  11. Guest Icon Guest
    Jordan, Guest @ 4:37 am

    10 bucks says this comment was left by a drunk dude^^
    What the heck???

add a comment

Find Amazing Vendors