Pages


Friday, July 29, 2005

Gay Old Time

I saw an interesting segment on the news last night. It was about a religious camp for homosexuals. Immediately I was against it because I think that being gay is due to nature and it isn't a choice. I've heard of similar camps before and stories of people who are sent by their ashamed parents and are expected to change because someone throws a Bible in front of them. I was surprised when the people interviewed said that they chose to go to the camp and that they are still gay. They said the camp just taught them to surpress their desires. They wanted to do this because they believe acting out on their homosexuality is a sin.

I think this is interesting because they admit that being gay isn't a choice, but know that acting on those desires is a choice that conflicts with their religious beliefs. So would the Catholic church acknowledge this to - that being gay isn't a choice? I don't think so.

I don't know if homosexuality is a sin or not - that's up to God to decide. I do know that privacy should remain a freedom we enjoy in the U.S. I also think that a political party that argues for a government that doesn't interfere in citizens lives' is being hypocritical by opposing gay marriage. You know how wrong and inhumane we think that the generations before us treated minorities? Before they claimed minorities were inferior due to science, now people are claiming gays are due to religion. I think that our children will look back at the way we mock homosexuals and deny them some of the same rights we enjoy and wonder how we could've rationalized it. Evidence: While all of the states (including my own) banned gay marriage last year, many college towns (again, including my own) were opposing the measures in large numbers. Who is a threat to the "institution of marriage" more - people who get married 5 times or a committed gay couple?

3 comments:

Kevin said...

I completely agree with your point that Republicans are being hypocritical and that our children will ridicule our intolerance of homosexuality the way we riducule our fathers intolerance of race.

I support gay civil unions. I support giving gay couples all of the rights and benefits currently available to married couples.

As to your question, "who is more of a threat to the institution of marriage?" I would argue that it is indeed gay people who pose the most threat.

And that's a good thing.

Because the "institution of marriage" as it currently stands, is flawed. It NEEDS to be not only threatened, but abolished. And we need to create a new definition of what it means to be married.

Adam said...

According to Merriam-Webster Online, marriage is "the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law"

BUT... a second definition (wonder when it was put in there) is "the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage"

The interesting difference between definition and reality is that in definition 1, it says "contractual relationship recognized by law". As we all know, gay marriage isn't recognized by law.

I think that it is ok for people to be married and divorce after many years. People do change and I think that it can be unhealthy for everyone to "stay together for the kids". However, when people get remarried for the 3rd time or get a divorce after a year and a half, then it is sketchy.

I know that I will think long and hard before I propose to anyone.

Kevin said...

My problem is that I believe that marriage is a sacrament. To truly be "married," you have to have the consent of the Church.

I also believe that Christianity in itself does not oppose homosexuality. (Side note: the State News has been running a great debate in the editorial section about this very topic)
I believe that the Church should (and eventually will) allow gay marriages.

In the mean time (because that will take awhile), the government should not be able to legally distinguish between a civil union and a marriage when it comes to legal rights and benefits.

But all that is really only semantics. Let me try to give you a real answer.


Marriage is a promise. Nothing more, nothing less. Marriage is a declaration to the world that you have promised to love the other person for the rest of your life.

The high divorce rate is a symptom of the breakdown of social honor. Breaking your word has become acceptable, in some cases, expected.

Promises are slowly becoming meaningless.