Saturday, July 01, 2006

A Ponder Point

I'm not sure why this popped in my mind but it did and I have been pondering on it. Now I readily admit, I'm a natural born ponderer and it doesn't take much to get me going but this one hit me to the point of wanting to share. I think I can thank mistyforeverlost for it LOL. Okay it is based on misty's comment (and I'm paraphrasing here, so forgive me misty) that being gay isn't about sex. I think that's the best way I can put it. So that lead me to the following. Once upon a time, girls had best friends, we had girlfriends. I think that still happens. Boys or guys they had their best friends too. You would have sleepovers. Shoot, best friends of the same sex have shared beds forever, usually out of convenience, just nothing thought of it. Best friends have shared homes. All strictly platonic. Some of those relationships have lasted a lifetime. Best friends (male or female) can be stronger than any. I would say platonic love can be a very strong, loyal, wonderful relationship. Some best friends will reach a point in their lives where they will move in together, perhaps after loosing mates or whatever and will live the rest of their lives together. Now they probably date members of the opposite sex or if they have sex it's with members of the opposite sex, but then you said this is not about sex so that should not be held against them. So tell me, what is to keep these "couples" all strictly platonic love relationships, from saying look, we deserve the same "rights" as all the gays? I mean if the law is changed and gays are given, what I consider "special" rights? If it's not about the sex, but the bond, then how can we say that two platonic love friends are not a "couple" and deserve the same rights? Ohhhhhhhhh I can't wait to hear the responses to this one LOL. Don't disappoint me now.


Blogger mistyforeverlost said...

I think I said "marriage" isn't about the sex but I would have to go look and see to make sure. One can have all the sex they want without the marriage part. ;O) Marriage is so much more then the ability to have sexual intercourse.

Most marriages that last are about the bond. The bond is what holds any two people together for a long duration of time. And the spouse for marriages that last are best friends.

If someone is getting married just so they can have sex, then they are most likely going to fall into the "over 50% of all first time hetrosexual marriages fail" statistics.

Go figure...worried about some homo demoting and altering what marriage really means and let those hetro's go to Elvis on the strip for a quick "I do" and divorce within a year later because the sex is no longer all that grand. ;O)

5:14 AM  
Blogger Auntie D said...

Seeeeeeeee one more thing we agree on. Is this getting scarey or what???? LOL A Liberal and a Conservative actually agreeing and getting along.....will miracles ever end??? LOL Yes, I do TRULY agree with you about marriage is much, much more than sex. And as you said, those who base marriage strictly on sex is domed for failure. No argument from me on that. But then we go back to, why can't a couple of "best friends" who have strong bonds and platonic love and committment to the relationship (but date opposite sex or just are doing without period for lack of interest due to whatever reason) also have the same rights as all "couples"? Why can't they get married? If they don't have sex and it's strictly platonic but they choose to live together.......are they gay? What about the older people, like I have an employee over 60 who has lost her husband and she is living with her twin brother. They deeply love one another. They are committed to one another. They share expenses and trying to take care of each other. They NEED all the help they can get. Why can't her brother, who happens to be very, very ill at this time, why can't he recieve benefits from her employment??

5:58 AM  
Blogger Auntie D said...

Off the subject question.....why am I having to type in some letters before I can post to my blog? I don't do it on anyone else's? Are y'all having to do it on my blog?

5:59 AM  
Blogger Wadical said...

You have to turn that feature off under Settings tab then under Comments tab. Scroll down to "Show word verification for comments" and select "NO". Save settings and republish your blog...that should do it. *Warning* you WILL get comment spam if you do this. For some people it gets quite out of hand and they need word verification. I've gotten a few but it's tolerable so far.

12:06 PM  
Blogger mistyforeverlost said...

Because they are not "in love" as a couple would be. I guess if the laws change, they could probably go for it, but no worse then non-in-love couples going for the marriage vows to get inheretance money or citizenship.

I guess most of the world equates marriage with a certain kind of love. Brothers and sisters don't fit the bill and would be incest (which would bring me to a religious discussion that might royally make you I'll refrain) friends don't have that sort of love, although they do have a deep love for one another and could fudge it if they really wanted to.

But who really wants to get married if they don't really WANT to because of tax issues, seperation issues, etc.

Should the laws change to afford anyone who wants the right to be legally married in the eyes of the government? I don't think so because then you have incest, etc and that's just not acceptable (I have to draw the line somewhere ya know!). Should polygamy be included? Don't know...I haven't mad up my mind on that one yet.

Should someone be able to designate another and pay for their health insurance through an established plan even if they aren't married? Yes, I think that would be a good idea, but I draw the line at expecting the employers to cover the cost if they are not married. Should there be a tamper-proof way to allot a non-related member as your executor--living or dead? That might end some of the homosexual marriage issues. Same with tamper-proof who gets the kids issue and tamper proof social security or child support in case of divorce.

4:34 PM  
Blogger Auntie D said...

The thing is when we start "changing" the laws or definition of marriage for one "special group" of people, whether we agree or disagree about the "gay" issue put aside but just looking at the reality and what it could open the door to happen, I'm sorry, I see it like opening a pandora box. A never ending one. The more and more I pondered on it, the more and more I saw nothing but ongoing trouble until the whole institution of marriage will be nothing but a farce. So the way I'm seeing it now is not so much a "gay issue" but a saving the sanctity of marriage. It's bad enough as it is that divorce is as high as it is and as acceptable as it is, but to add one more slam I'm afraid it would all fall a part.

4:22 PM  
Blogger mistyforeverlost said...

You realize that at one point it was illegal for blacks to marry, let alone marry anyone of lighter skin? The sanctity of marriage had to be changed in order to accomodate them and your arguement was the same that many had when they wanted to deny blacks those rights.

As far as I am concerned, nothing can ruin the sanctity of your marriage. Not anothers divorce, not a cheater, not a polygamist, not wife/husband collector. Nobody. The only person that can ruin your marriage is yourselves. So with that in mind...a homosexual receiving state marriage rights will not alter or change your marriage one bit. They can't make the marriage issue worse because the cavalier attitude surrounding marriage comes from a much stronger problem called lack of morals and values. People just don't value marriage anymore. It's nothing special. If you get one and don't like it, you can easily get out with much hassle.

If you think a bit more on it, you might realize that those homosexuals who truely wanted to be bonded together via the state and share financial obligations with each other are not going to do so lightly. Not as lightly as hetrosexuals. For us, it's not big deal. We get married and create Bridezilla reality shows and then a year later get divorced.

They, on the other hand never had the pleasure and will take their vows much more seriously then we do.

6:00 PM  
Blogger Auntie D said...

You may not believe me but I am honestly pondering on all of this. I will not change my faith or my beliefs but I'm stepping aside and just pondering on it. I agree that the only people who can ruin a marriage is the two people in the marriage. If they have taken their vows to heart and have vowed to make a committment, then they will stay together through thick or thin. No outsider can mess that up. But I must say, I'm surrounded by many, many dedicated and very happy married people. All the ones I know are Christ centered and the vows they make are very serious and divorce is not an option to them. That's the thing, divorce is not an option. I do disagree with you in as I think the homosexuals would have just as high a rate of divorce if not higher. There might be a few who would take the vows seriously but the easy way out is just as there for them as it is the hetersexuals. There is no way I believe they would be any better at staying married than the ones who do it now. If it were true, you would have many, many, many more homosexuals staying together now, without marriage. But they don't. The ones with years, or a lifetime together are no higher than the married couples. As far as comparing the situation for the blacks to homosexuals, that's just wrong and blacks take offense to that. Blacks at one time were not even considered human. There's no way to compare. What we are talking about is how do you change the wording of the law so that it doesn't open the door to ANY and EVERY thing being okay? We are talking about female having sex with female and male having sex with male......and they want to be treated the same as a man and woman couple. Now that is what we are talking about. And what I'm trying to see is how on earth would you word that law?

5:35 PM  
Blogger mistyforeverlost said...

civil union would be a good start. And homosexuals, even though always a human, were once listed as mentally disturbed and "cureable" or "certifiable" take your pick.

I agree that some black people may take offense to the arguement of "they are not worthy and will ruin the sanctity of marriage" and others won't. Either way, the arguement is the same. We could go through the whole black history on freedom, but it won't change that they were oppressed and thought of as second class citizens when it came to rights and abilities afforded all other Americans (same as the American Indian).

I'll have to re-look up the statistics about homosexual marriage in a country that allows it legally via the government. The statistics for hetro's did not alter much and the statistics for homo's were either equal or slightly less when it came to divorce.

I'm glad your pondering it. The thing is and many have a hard time with this concept is that just because a law is put into affect to "protect" another person (in this case, homosexual unions)...that does not mean you personally have to utilize that law or alter your own beliefs or faith. You can still believe it is wrong, you can still have your faith. Laws are there for those who need to use it or want to use it, sorta like your right to get married (as a hetro) you *have* to use that law or is it your choice to use that law? It's there for you if you want it, but it's not something you are being forced to use.

7:36 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home