Let's Have a Debate

I am a Christian - and I refuse to allow others to define what Christianity is for me. The intrusion of the far right conservative fundamentalism into government policy is troubling. I am particularly concerned with the position on so called "gay marriage". The issue is more clearly about civil marriage - and why two adults who love each other and make a commitment to each other and are a couple in all respects similar to a heterosexual couple - why this homosexual couple should be denied the rights and responsibilities that are routinely given to a heterosexual couple. Here are some questions I have been unable to get satisfactory answers to about the relationship between the state and gays:

(1) My aunt remarried in her 70's after her first husband died. How is that civil marriage so much different from a homosexual civil marriage, as children and sex were not factors so much as were companionship and legal issues?

(2) With all of the un-adopted children - why don't heterosexuals adopt rather than having their own children? And as they don't in sufficient numbers to eliminate adoptable children, why can't gay couples - who have been shown in study after study to be in no demonstrable way less better than heterosexual parents - adopt?

(3) What is the threat to heterosexuals and the family from gay civil marriage? Is not the promotion of loving and caring and committed relationships better for the community?

(4) What are the implications of having the six percent of the population that is gay having to live lives closeted from hurtful heterosexuals; and by not supporting and encouraging healthy committed relationships; instead tilting this population towards stress, depression, and promiscuity?

(5) The scientific and medical communities are in broad agreement that homosexuality is a normal and expected variant of the characteristics God gives humans? (Not so much different than being left-handed) And that the American Medical Association and the American Psychological Association support acceptance and equality for gays. What professional evidence is there to support anti gay measures?

(6) In lieu of all the legislation hurtful to homosexuals that conservatives support, describe what type of life and lifestyle they really want a gay person to live?

(7) Many progressive European countries, Canada, and Massachusetts as well the majority of younger voters in the U.S. support civil marriage for gays? What has been the effect of these sweeping changes?

Comments

Unknown said…
THANK YOU! I just read through your blog and I am linking it on my blog for folks to read...you make very very very good points that everyone should know...Keep up the good words and good points...it is going to be a rough over the next 6 months leading to the amendment vote...thanks for your support of equality!
Wednesday, February 15, 2006 11:00:00 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Top 10 Consequences Of Voting Yes On The Virginia Marriage Amendment

The following is offered as there are opposing lists being circulated by the religious right. So, here are my Top 10 Consequences of Voting Yes on the Virginia Marriage Amendment. 1. Voting Yes is unnecessary, as marriage is already defined in Virginia by statute. 2. Voting Yes ignores the facts – ignores the accepted medicine and science on this subject. 3. Voting Yes to constitutionalize such a socially charged issue, in flux, is clearly in opposition to Jeffersonian Democracy. 4. Voting Yes is an unabashed ploy by cynical Republicans to get out their base. 5. Voting Yes is in opposition to the maintaining of a bright line between church and state. 6. Voting Yes could bring about a myriad of unintended consequences to unmarried heterosexual couples. 7. Voting Yes will continue to paint Virginia as a cultural backwater and an unfriendly place for the location of new high tech businesses. 8. Voting Yes will hardly benefit the thousands of children in gay families nor give hope to many
Read more

I Am Ashamed That Eric Cantor Is My Congressman

I understand that most don’t have the leisure I have, as a retiree, to follow issues, to stay tuned to political debates, to spend time and become involved in local politics. However, it is appalling that those fellow citizens of my 7th District in Virginia have such a knee jerk reaction to this current financial crisis such as to swallow the political rhetoric of Congressman Cantor and to not see this partisan politician for who he is. To see Congressman Cantor spotlighted on national news holding up House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s floor remarks and using this as the reason that Republicans failed to pass their administration’s backed financial crisis bill was nauseating. Cantor was playing politics. Cantor was petty. Cantor was being used by his party handlers to try and shift this failure to reach accord onto the Democrats for political gain. Cantor was seen as a safe spokesman who is from the brightest red district of a red state with little formidable opposition to push this mal
Read more

Yes Virginia, There Are Homosexuals – In Spite Of Mean-Spirited Marriage Amendments

You don't need to be a lawyer to write a marriage amendment apparently, but you could use some common sense. A high school student could have written a better amendment than the proposed Virginia marriage amendment. And if it weren't so poorly written, this topic wouldn't be the subject of debate and discussion all across the Commonwealth. Just using words like "approximate" and "qualities . . . of marriage" for example --- these words mean something different to every one who reads them. At least, you will have to admit that for a constitutional amendment to our Bill of Rights, this language is far from ideal. And more importantly is not easily and consistently communicated to the general populace. But why tiptoe around this. Delegate Robert Marshall has admitted in interviews and debates that he seized onto this quest after Lawrence v. Texas and his homophobia and obsession with sodomy (overlooking that oral sex within heterosexual couples is sodom
Read more