Twitter and email info

Monday, June 29, 2015

Letter from a reader commenting on the gay marriage issue....

My blog post regarding the issue of gay marriage did not receive many views.  It has become very apparent to me that my readers prefer commentary relating to current events, especially Ukraine and Syria/Iraq.  That being said, I did receive more feedback than usual, most of it angry and hostile to my perspective.  But I did get one email reply that I have decided to share (with the permission of the writer).  I have made this decision because the person in question is a happily married woman with a wonderful child, who has always been very supportive of gay issues.  Her message was just another indication that this issue is not about equal rights for gay community.  It is about taking one step too far.  Some things that exist in the United States and pre-date the struggle for gay equality, must be left in place.  Not in an effort to discriminate, but just because its the right thing to do.  The gay community can have their own unions, their own ceremonies, and call it what they like.  The government should pass federal legislation to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination regarding their unions.  But marriage consists of a certain definition, and has certain boundaries, that should not be broken.  Why?  Because it is unfair to the millions of persons who entered into that agreement, under the impression that it would stay sacrosanct and unaltered for all time.  This is what the gay community just doesn't understand.  Marriage as it existed for so many centuries was not discriminatory; it just had particular boundaries.  And the idea that opening up old-fashioned marriage to gay couples is going to somehow further the cause of equality is a specious argument, because in its normal state, it doesn't represent inequality.  Please take note of the following letter:

I woke up this morning having the strangest thoughts about the whole gay marriage thing (or as the PC police are now pushing for it to be called: "just marriage" - puke).
 
At first I didn't really "get it" when you've been saying that it "changes what married people already have"… but now I've begun hearing arguments about whether or not this ruling makes things better for ALL those in the LGBTIQ community. Ok, let me first admit that I have no idea what the "I" stands for and that I don't know how or why the "queers" get their own designation… but I digress. Let me focus on just one letter in this culturally invented alphabet soup: B.  How in the world is marriage suppose to "fit" with "Bisexual"… and that's when I began to worry that marriage, as I know it, is over. It didn't worry me previously that there could and probably would be "other types" of marriage from mine (i.e. "Gay marriage"), but I was so limited in my thinking: Marriage, I assumed, is between two people. Okay, I'll be honest, actually polygamy doesn't even bother me… like on the television show Sister Wives… I'm fairly open minded, and that seems to be working for them, so I'm for "live and let live".  But what now with this alphabet soup of LGBTIQ? If there is a "Bi" person that wants to be married, but "fully live as a Bisexual"… does that mean that they'll demand to be married to both a man and a woman? And will that man and woman be married to each other? Maybe some Triangle-Marriages will want all combinations of partners married and some won't … so that's a whole other option now.  And what about the "Caitlyn's" out there who want to be "Gender-Fluid" and therefore have one straight marriage as their birth sex and one Trans-Marriage?  If Bi's can be married to two people why can't the Trans/Fluid? Facebook has over fifty categories of gender now, how in the world can there now be any finite number of "types" of marriage? So the PC crowd is saying: "it doesn't matter! It's all just marriage!" But then what is marriage anymore? Moving in with someone? Wanting to share benefits? Hospital Visitation rights? Wanting the right to have a say when they are unconscious? Inheritance? I thought it was something more than this. I thought it was something special. But now exactly "what" it is, is being changed radically and uncontrollably by those intent on making the loudest and most dramatic point they can, and it makes me a little sad.   And I'm sure that I'm in the minority for having all this bother me.  But it does erode away something I thought that I had.
 
 
 
 
 
 
So maybe I'll stop saying "Gay Marriage" to avoid conflict,  but I'll go ahead and preserve my right to proudly call mine a "Traditional, Straight marriage" not "just marriage".
 
Sincerely,
Anonymous
P.S. (I wasn't that thrilled with the rainbow lit White House and Capital building, And if I see one more Facebook profile picture tinted Rainbow, I'm vomiting.) 

 

1 comment:

  1. I've always thought the legal definitions were a bit dated and that "marriage", at least by government definition, should be more of a legal contract that embodied certain common clauses. This would maintain the separation between religious and bureaucratic needs.

    ReplyDelete