The Triangle

Blogs Classifieds LoginForums--> Weather Datebook Archives

Same-sex marriage tarnishes the "real" identity of marriage

Abstract:
Dear Editor,

Marriage is not just a religious symbol or social status or even a spiritual status. It is an identity. It is an identity that has been present ever since time began. It is the only identity that is acknowledged by any religion, race, society or nation....

Displaying 1 - 13 of 13

gilesjp

posted 6/28/08 @ 2:31 PM EST

Gay marriage seems to bring out the homophones. I am straight male can not understand why these people would alter the state constitutions to put anti- gay marriage amendments in them.I don't like using these documents to hold people down. Straight women come out against it because marriage is a womens institution that is so lopsided in our society that it has a huge risk for males. If gays get married then some of this lopsidedness would go away and divorce laws would come to the center becoming more balanced. Many straight women don't want this to happen. Gay marriage will never pass a ballot vote because of these reasons. Gays must take it to the supreme court to get justice. I just wonder whats taking them so long.Also I have not seen any sociologists and such people write about the impact gay marriage would have on society nor have I seen an economic analysis which should be interesting. As far as marriage being an identity sharing it with gays does not diminish it. Your religious beliefs don't have anything to do with the constitution of the united states and cannot be used to hurt others.

Post a reply to this comment

boomer

posted 6/28/08 @ 11:54 PM EST

Read "Why Marriage Matters: America, Equality, and Gay People's Right to Marry" by Even Wolfson

Originally posted by
gilesjp
Gay marriage seems to bring out the homophones. I am straight male can not understand why these people would alter the state constitutions to put anti- gay marriage amendments in them.I don't like using these documents to hold people down. Straight women come out against it because marriage is a womens institution that is so lopsided in our society that it has a huge risk for males. If gays get married then some of this lopsidedness would go away and divorce laws would come to the center becoming more balanced. Many straight women don't want this to happen. Gay marriage will never pass a ballot vote because of these reasons. Gays must take it to the supreme court to get justice. I just wonder whats taking them so long.Also I have not seen any sociologists and such people write about the impact gay marriage would have on society nor have I seen an economic analysis which should be interesting. As far as marriage being an identity sharing it with gays does not diminish it. Your religious beliefs don't have anything to do with the constitution of the united states and cannot be used to hurt others.

Post a reply to this comment

Paul Benedict

posted 6/28/08 @ 3:55 PM EST

I'm from California, and I'd like to enlarge on this editorial. "Identity" is perhaps a little too polite. There is only one act that consummates a marriage. Marriage is not about "love" (for I love this land, but it is not my wife). Marriage is not about commitment (for I am committed to the laws of this land, but this land is not my wife). Nor, is marriage about children (for there are an abundance of childless marriages in the world and none are any less a marriage for the lack of children). No, marriage is about consecrating a specific gender positive activity by enshrining it in love and commitment. Family, fatherhood, motherhood, husband and wife, these word contain an abundance of feeling and sentiment because as the writer of the letter wonderfully notes, they are more than laws, they are a state of identity of being, a self name. California has refused to recognize all of these names for oneself to its citizens. However, none of these names are marriage.

The definition of marriage is gender positive. The California Supreme Court, to give itself an excuse to rewrite the California Constitution, used a case about interracial marriage that dated back to 1948, to declare that 'the right to marry' is found in the California Constitution. Using this Court's own findings, then, they have denied the 'right to marry' to everyone in California, homosexual and heterosexual alike. Now, no one in California is recognized as husband and wife. Everyone in California is either "Party A" or "Party B." Not only did the California court fail to expand the definition of marriage inclusively (an impossible proposition) they have by fiat, without legislation, "contracted" the definition of marriage out of existence. No one can get married in California any longer. Now, when a man and a woman ask the State of California to recognize their marriage, they receive a lie. It's a disgrace.

I believe that the writer is correct about something else quite profound. The state can do nothing to injure marriage itself, for marriage is beyond humanity as it is fundamental to what humanity is. However, the state can seriously, seriously damage its own integrity, and the State of California has done just this. It has stolen the right of referendum from its citizens as it has refused to acknowledge one of the most fundamental states that humanity is blessed to dwell in. Likewise, it is very likely that the right to a ballot initiative will also be denied the citizens of California before November. What sort of government is it now?

Post a reply to this comment

Yogi

posted 6/28/08 @ 5:15 PM EST

I ask all the naysayers: What is it about gay marriage that you are so afraid of? That Rob and Jason will have a better marriage than you? The anti-gay posts here reek of insecurity.

Post a reply to this comment

Lux Gurusamy

posted 6/29/08 @ 4:26 PM EST

Here is the original letter I wrote- if this helps...

Democracy has proven itself to be the most effective way of life. The success of democracy attributes to the level of tolerance people have gained over the years. Tolerance towards different views, different religions, and towards anything that makes our lives better (or worse) is the core for a successful democracy. But one should not get mystified between tolerance and incompetence. Especially when our leaders paint their incompetency with claims of tolerance. The trend of the today's government agencies to allow and accept gay marriages is a textbook example of where, our leaders and decision makers of our states shamelessly paint a picture of tolerance and innovativeness over their incompetence.

Marriage is not just a religious symbol or social status or even a spiritual status. It is an identity. It is an identity that has been present ever since the time began. It is the only identity that is acknowledged by any religion, race, society or nation. Our ancestors who were relatively smarter than us, never fooled with that identity.

To ask the folks like me to share this identity with gays and lesbians is highly hypocritical of the gay and lesbian community. Now, before I proceed further, let me make one thing clear. I am progay and I do support with my wholeheartedness that equal rights must be granted to gay/lesbian community. But there is a difference between sharing equal rights and sharing my own identity.

We shall not consider allowing gay marriages to share the same identity of that of regular marriages. It is not tolerance but just incompetence from our part not to act or even standup for our identity. By all means, allow gay/lesbian community to have a share of legal rights by allowing what is known as a " civil union". By getting "unionized" instead of "getting married", gay/lesbian couples shall have access to legal adoption, life insurance and other matters that are privileged for the married couples. Thereby a "unionized couple" can have all they have asked for. But to grant the time honored identity of marriage to the gay/lesbian community is just foolish and it is hypocritical of gay/lesbian community to even ask for it.

Just as a Roman legionnaire's swing of the sword had its say in the course of the history; American legislatures are in a situation where every act of theirs will have a profound effect on the rest of the world. We just can't afford to mislead the rest of world by our own incompetence. We shall put a stop to this gay marriage concept once and for all.

Lux Gurusamy
June 19, 2008

Originally posted by
Yogi
I ask all the naysayers: What is it about gay marriage that you are so afraid of? That Rob and Jason will have a better marriage than you? The anti-gay posts here reek of insecurity.

Post a reply to this comment

Flex Colby

posted 6/28/08 @ 6:16 PM EST

Don't worry, Lux,

The right-wing Christians could place a constitutional amendment banning oxygen for same-sex couples. Maybe they could gain more power in the next election with this amendment. You must be proud to live in a major, international metropoliran world-class state such as Pennsylvania that goes out of it's way to attract single-minded fat-assed Christians. Unlike California, where the whole world is viewing it as a beacon of hope, and a symbol of a truely free, and sophisticated society. So, continue to follow the path of "Christianity, and you won't be able to distinguish yourselves from everybody in Alabama, and South Carolina!

Post a reply to this comment

Mike NYC

posted 6/28/08 @ 8:16 PM EST

One has to wonder how Mr. Gurusamy looks at polygamous marriage as it relates to the identity of marriage. Certainly it's been around as long as any other type. Of course, it would be rather hard to "mislead" the "rest" of the world since other countries have already beaten the US to same sex marriage. I would say that the "identity" issue is more with the poster than with same sex marriage.

Post a reply to this comment

Charlotte

posted 6/29/08 @ 11:37 AM EST

There will always be people against equality. Marriage is a basic civil right that should be attainable by all Americans if they choose. Education is key. For those who are uncomfortable with gay marriage check out our short produced to educate & defuse the controversy. It has a way of opening closed minds & provides some sanity on the issue: www.OUTTAKEonline.com

Post a reply to this comment

MarioD

posted 7/04/08 @ 4:32 AM EST

It's cool how they delete comments on here - great use of the 1st amendment.

What i said, BEFORE, was that this is a non-issue, and that the editor of this paper shouldn't print letters that are written just to stir up anger from both sides. The writer of this letter needs to spend more time on their senior design project and less time worrying about OTHER PEOPLES' MARRIAGES.

Post a reply to this comment

Annabelle

posted 7/05/08 @ 12:21 PM EST

'Now, before I proceed further, let me make one thing clear. I am pro-gay, and I do support with wholeheartedly that equal rights must be granted to the gay/lesbian community. But there is a difference between sharing equal rights and sharing my own identity.'

This way of thinking is very reminiscent of the idea of "separate but equal" that was so common in the times of segregation. But civil unions are NOT equal to marriage. In the few states that allow them, civil unions only offer a small number of the 1,049 benefits the United States government gives to heterosexual married couples. Marriage is a legal issue in America, whatever its spritual roots may or may not be. It is governed by various laws by the government (you are required to have a marriage license to get married, documents such as prenuptial agreements can be drawn up, etcetera). My point is, the issue of marriage has become, in large part, the domain of the government. And as a nation, America has long prided itself in the fact that all men were created equal, and must therefore be afforded equal rights by the government. It is only natural then that the government open it's eyes to the separate but equal nature of civil unions.

And by the way, saying "I am pro-gay, but don't want to share my identity" is like saying "I have black friends, I just don't think they should be able to live in my neighborhood." It's just a cop-out for your underlying homophobia.

Post a reply to this comment

Lux Gurusamy

posted 7/08/08 @ 12:08 AM EST

Annabelle

Then ask for the 1049 benifits that gay/lesbian community deserve. I will be along side with you.

Messing with the identity of marriage in order to get the same recognition is what I dont agree with. The concept of marriage is larger gay/lesbian community- it is larger than life- we just shouldn't mess with it.

That's all I am saying...

Post a reply to this comment

Ruth

posted 7/07/08 @ 8:53 PM EST

We're doing no favors to those suffering from homosexual temptation by ignoring their suffering, anymore than we could help any suffering person by telling them to accept their suffering as normal. But we're not facing the reason we've gotten this low in our morality, and that's the acceptance of contraception. To deny that the purpose of the sexual act is the survival of our species,-- the procreation of children-- is just the beginning of the perversion of sex. Sex is not made for pleasure. The fact that the sexual act is pleasurable is based on the same principle that eating is pleasurable, it ensures that humankind will engage in that act, and thus survive. And overindulging in sex has the same result as misusing anything else. So we can accept that we will derive pleasure from sex, but since sex is for the begetting of children, then our first goal must be to see that those children we conceive have the best chance of surviving to adulthood, and the best chance of that is with the parents who created them.

Once we made of sex an act existing only for our pleasure, then that logical leap will lead to homoerotic sex, sex with many partners, sex with animals, or what have you, and of course sex without the inconvenience of children who require us to forego other pleasures. And thus we accept abortion. Unless we stop this now and realize the primary purpose of sex, I'm afraid that we're doomed.

Post a reply to this comment

Mo

posted 7/13/08 @ 5:10 AM EST

if you don't want the "civil union" lux is suggesting, then why in the world would you want to get married? are gays/lesbians husbands and wives?

i think that is what identity means... an apple is definitely not an orange so therefore you can't call it citrus.

Post a reply to this comment