Is it Hatred to Ban Same-Sex Marriage?

Is it Hatred to Ban Same-Sex Marriage?
National Organization for Marriage

Is it hatred to ban homosexuals from marrying?  I read a lot of articles that say it is, comparing it to the ban on interracial marriage from before the 1960's.

Does the hatred of people lead us to limit their rights?  It is interesting that North Carolina passed the ban on gay marriage (or if you don't like the word "gay," same-sex marriage).  The majority of people voted that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

But is that hatred?

I come from an era (early 1970's) where homosexuals had one foot in the closet and the other tentatively out in society.  There were a few who came out to close friends, but rarely even to their own families.  One guy told me that he would NEVER tell his parents.

It was also a time of random sex and AIDS was ten years into the future.  The attitude was that if you picked up a disease, it was easily cured with creams and pills.  No big deal.

The homosexuals I knew, led two lives.  They went to all the heterosexual parties alone.  Their night didn't start until much later and they rarely talked about it.  The only "significant" others in their lives were "significant" for right now.  It was a time when one-night stands were the norm regardless of your sexual orientation.

I worked with a homosexual man a couple of years ago.  He came from a large Catholic family.  He had lived with a much older man for most of his life.  They had a brutal and messy breakup.  He left his gorgeous home that he had built with his partner with just the clothes on his back.

One day we were talking about his lifestyle.  At this stage in his life, he was truly starting over.  He would joke about having sex first to see if the other man was "date-worthy."  He was also going back to the creative things he loved that his partner never allowed him to do.

He was funny, charming, outspoken and didn't seem to mind that I was a practicing Catholic.

We never talked about him possibly getting married one day.  After a twenty year relationship, I don't think that was something he was looking for.

In one swoop, everything changed.  He got fired from his job, he got sick and he died.  When I heard about what happened, I was stunned.  Every door of new opportunities seemed to be opening for him.  He was happy and vibrant.  We had a great time working together.  How could he just be ... gone?

I cared about him a lot and I still think about him to this day.  I didn't hate him.  I just didn't think that if he wanted to spend another twenty years with someone else, it shouldn't be called marriage.

 

Comments

Leave a comment
  • Then what should it be called?

  • You never answer the question that you ask. Instead you fill your post with just one example of a gay person you know and then conclude that if he's in a long relationship again it shouldn't be called marriage. Then you don't offer any explanation for why.

    All this post shows is that you really have no idea what what you're talking about, but as a Catholic you feel like you have the right to define marriage. The debate about gay marriage is defined by the state, not by any religious organization. So, the correct anser is YES it is hatred. Catholicism doesn't have the monopoly on the definition of marriage and shouldn't be allowed to control it. You have no right to force your bronze age beliefs on other peoples lives. If you knew anything about this issue you would see that it is fueled by hatred.

    Sure, you might "feel" that gays shouldn't be allowed to get married, but that is in no way grounds for your church to push it's agenda in other peoples lives. I happen to know several gay couples who have happy and healthy relationships and some that don't. I could say the exact same thing about their heterosexual counterparts. Heck, I'm a heterosexual male and I've had plenty of bad relationships, does that mean I shouldn't be allowed to get married?

    In short your religion or your "feeling on the subject as a Catholic" should have nothing to do with if gay marriage is legal. If your religion doesn't like gay marriage then don't get gay married. For the rest of the population, who can think for themselves and don't think that they were magically born into the one true religion, leave us alone and allow us to live our lives the way we see fit.

  • Well said, Bacon. This person makes absoutely no sense. If same-sex couples cannot get married under the religious right's definition of marriage, than why should hetero couple that abhor religion be allowed to then? The Catholic Church would never let my wife and I marry in it because we would both open say we do not think jesus ever existed, so then why do Catholics think it's ok for my wife and I to even be married? Aren't the religious suggesting that marriage is a religious institution and not a state-controlled legal contract? I benefits afforded to married couples are bestowed by the state and federal governments, not any church. I was married on a golf course and derive absolutely no benefit from any church, anywhere.

    Also, what does one man's messy breakup with another have to do with a stance against marriage? Do you know the AIDS rate among heterosexual African Americans is nearly double the rate among gay men?

    Instead of making ridiculous statements, people should do their homework before using, "well I'm Catholic" as an excuse. Your apostle Paul also believed in slavery and that women should never make important decisions, hence why your church is run only by men, and why most Prostestant sects only allow men to sit on their boards of elders. Your cult should not define my relationship.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to bobmarket:

    ".Your apostle Paul also believed in slavery and that women should never make important decisions, hence why your church is run only by men, and why most Prostestant sects only allow men to sit on their boards of elders"

    You are taking the bible out of context. Paul never advocated for slavery. There is mention that he sent a slave back to his owner. That is hardly an advocate that supported slavery or that in any way God supports slavery.

    While I can't speak about the Catholic church, you are wrong to say MOST protestant churches do not allow woman to be on the board of elders. It's just the opposite. Most mainline denominations allow woman to become ordained ministers. Some conservative synods do not allow woman to be pastors, but they are the minority and most DO allow woman in other important leadership roles like deacon. It is a mistaken interpretation that woman should not make important decisions. Paul had several woman in leaderhsip positions. Priscilla to name one. Paul is also only referencing woman's role in the church, not outside of it. The 1 Corinthians scripture you are referencing is often taken out of context to make woman look inferior to men. There is no doubt that the bible suggests men and woman have different roles, but it is not suggested that one is inferrior to the other.

  • Bob and Bacon have really said it already but here's my ten cents' worth:
    If Catholics and other religious groups don't want same-sex marriage to be allowed as a religious ceremony in their church, then fine. People who want to marry their same-sex partner will have to go and find a religion that tolerates them, just as any other individuals would who hold slightly different values do. However, that shouldn't mean that two persons of the same sex can't be considered "married" under the law. These are two different things and religious organizations shouldn't be dictating the laws here.

    And agreed, when you state simply that you don't think homosexuals should be married, without explaining your reason, you kind of lose credibility. Quoting the bible, as many people do, also doesn't help because the Jesus that I was taught about in the Catholic church growing up, was a tolerant man who included everyone in his world (except the Pharisees), and who taught us all to love one another. He didn't say "don't love someone of the same sex".

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Expat in Chicago:

    You are mistaken on your biblical knowledge. Jesus did include the Phaisees, Zechariah come to mind right away. Jesus was not tolerant to sin, and called out all sinners several times in the bible. He forgives when you turn away and repent. Also, Jesus did say love one another, but he didn't say have sex with them. The sin is having gay sex.

    Now that I cleared that up, I am not against homosexuals getting married becasue we live in a secular society where the church does not dictate policy. I do think it goes against God's word, but so does having sex outside of marriage. I don't think anyone would support a constitutional ammendment that outlawed that.

  • In reply to Michael Severin:

    The Pharisees comment was tongue in cheek.
    Still - the comment without an explanation. Why, exactly is gay sex a sin? If Jesus didn't mention sex, then why is it OK for heteros to have sex and not gays? How come sex between a man and a woman is seen as an acceptable part of their loving relationship and the same between two people of the same sex? There's a huge leap there which, so far, no one seems to be able to "explain".

  • In reply to Expat in Chicago:

    That should read - How come sex between a man and a woman is seen as an acceptable part of their loving relationship and the same between two people of the same sex isn't?

  • Siblingless, I'm sorry that some people are calling you a bigot, hater, or an asshole on the ChicagoNow Facebook post. It's a rather strong response on their part, borne out of frustration, that's really not warranted. You're a kind, compassionate person--I want you to know that.

    However, I do agree with peoples' comments here and on FB about equality and justice. Denying the equal right to a slip of paper given out by the government that acknowledges the companionship of a couple in order to provide benefits is bigotry. I wouldn't say hatred, but I would say, "misguided attempt to win the hearts of sinners," perhaps. Legal recognition of gay marriage has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with government and laws.

    Why should we deny gay partners the right to see their loved one in the hospital, or make caregiving decisions when they are incapacitated? Why should we deny government benefits for their loved ones when a loved one dies? Why should we deny health care to their partner simply because some believe they are sinning? It is the opposition to legal recognition of gay marriage that actively hurts them and their families in very real ways. The Jesus I know cared and helped people, no matter their state of grace or of sin. Why shouldn't we?

    This is why, while I am not too sure about the theological underpinnings that proponents use to advocate for church recognition of gay marriage, I fully support federal and state laws that recognize gay marriage the same way federal and state laws already recognize marriages made outside of the sanctuary, so to speak.

  • Sorry for coming late to this party....

    It's good that you "didn't hate him." From your own recounting of the time period, most gay people had a secret life they kept from their family. Many did enter into heterosexual marriages to keep up appearances. Does that mean you would call that a marriage simply because it was between a man and woman?

Leave a comment