Why Oh Why Oppose Gay Marriage & Snow Love
What we love and loathe about living in East Greenwich this week.
Logan and Jenna Roberts enjoying their first snowfall last year – they moved here in December 2011 from Sarasota, Florida.
Photos (1)
Photos
RANT: Two of these things are not like the others, two of these things don’t belong:
Senator Dawson Hodgson
Former Fox new hosts Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly
Clint Eastwood
Senator Leo Raptakis
New York Ranger Sean Avery
Former basketball player Charles Barkely
Former VP Dick Chaney
State representative Anthony Giarrusso
C’mon. Mssrs Giarusso and Raptakis. Wake up and smell the spiced chai. You are fighting a losing battle on the gay marriage thing. But do what you have to do.
As for me, I don’t care who a person marries ... as long as it’s another person.
Seriously.
The other day, I googled “pet marriage legal” and one of the concerns that popped up early in the search was whether it is legal to marry your dog (it seems cats and cockatoos don’t rank as potential love mates). In case you are wondering, the answer to that question is no (there was apparently one case in India, but it was a ritual to ward off evil as opposed to a case of true – dare I say? – puppy love).
OK, the reason I googled the subject in the first place is because my niece’s dog was marrying her BFF (the pooch’s best friend, not my niece’s – still with me?).
Am I the only one who is surprised that doggie nuptials are big business in the States? Turns out there are wedding specialists who do everything from organizing the formal wear to picking up the post-ceremony poop (a pet peeve of mine, as you may know). There was news of one wedding (between Chilly and – wait for it – Baby Hope Diamond) that cost $250,000. Before anyone says, “Now THAT should be illegal,” I should add that the money went to charity.
The thing is, no one seems to feel that Rover and, for all we know, Rover exchanging vows – or is it bow wows? – is an insult to the sanctity of marriage. (I have to ask, do you think they have an anniversary every 1.7 months?)
Yes, I know, you can’t compare two animals being allowed to marry to two people being allowed to legally declare their commitment to each other. But my point, albeit roundabout, is, does marriage really belong to one group or religion?
In my mind, it is that kind of narrow thinking that truly belittles the institution.
RAVE: Say what you will about snow and its fallout – that it contains some unknown chemical that makes people forget how to drive, that it is a pain to shovel (especially the heavy, icy kind that came down Wednesday morning), that the plows in this town are part of an evil secret society whose mission is to barricade your driveway as soon as you have finished shoveling, that there is no such thing as pretty yellow snow, that it is hard to walk gracefully over an ice patch, that cold weather is invigorating for about only two minutes, that no one looks good in a down coat, that even the lightest sprinkling delays or cancels school and then what do you do with the kids?, that overnight snowstorms mean waking up an hour earlier just to have time for shoveling (and reshoveling after the plows have concluded their dark task), that my heating bill goes through the roof (along with the heat) every winter, that the subsequent sanding makes the roads messy, that regardless of the road conditions, my 82-year-old dad still insists on driving to his daily buffet lunch (breathe easy, he lives on Long Island) – I LOVE THE STUFF! Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow! (If you are in the opposite camp, here is a variation on the song to keep you happy: http://www.lyricsondemand.com/christmascarols/i/ihatesnowlyrics.html)
Alicarn
9:47 am on Saturday, January 19, 2013
To those who oppose gay marriage (ugh, I hate that term - it's just marriage) I always like to ask a question. When did they decide that they were straight?
Usually they can't answer and that's when I remind them that there really is no choice, that you are born straight or you are born gay, period.
I don't think anyone would chose to be gay; to choose to be harassed, preyed upon and discriminated against. Why would you chose to go through life knowing that you would find discriminated EVERYWHERE you go? Family, school, church, jobs, etc..
Our own government has told people it's okay to hate those who are gay.
We are ALL EQUAL and the closed minded legislators across our country will be waking up and doing what is right. EVERY little girl or boy needs to know that when they grow up and fall in love and choose to marry - that they can, regardless of their sexual preference.
The majority should never be allowed to vote on the rights of the minority. Equality for all.
KK
10:21 am on Saturday, January 19, 2013
Right on, Alicarn.
Mom of 3
10:41 am on Saturday, January 19, 2013
Well said, both of you!
Dawn M Strong
10:56 am on Saturday, January 19, 2013
Could not have said it better!!!!!!
Elsie
1:06 pm on Saturday, January 19, 2013
Now if we could persuade the legislature to act...
pam
2:41 pm on Saturday, January 19, 2013
Large numbers of people in France came out in support of the sanctity of marriage joined by some who were homosexuals themselves. Nothing I say would help, but maybe if you read this you will understand why oh why we oppose gay marriage. Jean Marc a French mayor who is a homosexual says "The rights OF children trump the rights TO children." Also read about a man who was raised by two women. He says he lived with the absence of a father and experienced it like an amputation.
http://www.c-fam.org/fridayfax/volume-15/french-homosexuals-join-demonstration-against-gay-marriage.html
Heather Larkin
3:37 pm on Saturday, January 19, 2013
The man who felt a father's absence like an amputation is 66 years old. When he was a boy I'm sure the familial landscape was vastly different than it is today. And who knows, maybe his mother was just not a good one regardless of her orientation.
Elsie
3:58 pm on Saturday, January 19, 2013
The rights of children have very little to do with allowing gay people equal rights with regards to marriage. Single people are allowed to adopt children. Having one or two parents who care, whether gay or straight, of different races, whatever, is better than being raised by the state. Allowing two people who love each other to marry, giving them the right to equal benefit of the law, does not harm others. They will be able to visit each other when sick, inherit when one dies, be covered under one insurance policy, etc. How does that hurt anyone else?
Joel Hovanesian
4:55 pm on Saturday, January 19, 2013
The man who felt a father's absence like an amputation is 66 years old. When he was a boy I'm sure the familial landscape was vastly different than it is today.
Heather L, I ask this simple question. Do you think we are better off today than we were 66 years ago? All I see today is a nation in a downward spiral and in moral decay. Live and let live, yes. But there has to be a limit to things.
Ericka Forman
5:18 pm on Saturday, January 19, 2013
Yes, there does have to be a limit, but not on same-sex marriage. We are talking about people who love each other. This is not moral decay. Folks who would deny someone their equal rights is decay. 66 years ago most women were expected to be barefoot and pregnant. 66 years ago it was perfectly ok to discriminate an the basis of sex, race, disability, and sexual orientation. Now we are legally bound not to discriminate on the basis of any of these things. Not in jobs, not in housing, and not in business. So we should not with this either.
Joel Hovanesian
5:35 pm on Saturday, January 19, 2013
I'm torn on this, I see every ones side of the equation. However I think of my children and what if. What if something had happened to my wife and I? What if I had no relatives to take care of them. (Not the case) but if I didn't and they ended up in foster care and put up for adoption.
I ask myself and I ask anyone do you feel they would be better off in a traditional family setting or in a same sex setting.
I'm not saying that same sex parents wouldn't be capable of loving children. However I would rather they be in a traditional situation if I were given a choice. I just believe the children would be better off. Life's tough enough these days on kids. I think this would just make it tougher. I'm not looking for an argument here. These are just my feelings
Heather Larkin
7:54 am on Sunday, January 20, 2013
Joel, look around. There are families filled with anger, abuse, dishonesty, indifference and more. Lots of them appear nice and shiny from the outside too.The idea that a traditional family is inherently better makes no sense.
And frankly, if you children were to end up in foster care and were not babies very few families, gay or straight, will be running to take them home. A nice gay couple might not appear so terrible after a few years.
lori
8:27 pm on Saturday, January 19, 2013
I agree with both sides...but, children are being exposed to this --which I am 100% OK with same -srx marriage, honestly...my daughter who is 9 is saying "when I grow up, I can marry a girl." And also married her best (girl) friend at recess. I am afraid she is being taught, from her classmates --it's Ok. I don't want her to be taught/ learned behavior that this is OK. I want her to be who she wants to be...not influenced or taught. This may be OK now...but 10 - 20 years our children are going to be more confused...
Joel Hovanesian
9:50 pm on Saturday, January 19, 2013
I am not OK with children being exposed to this. I believe this falls into the troubling realm of indoctrination. When children are to young, it's easy to influence them before they can look at things objectively. We need to ask ourselves, when are children mature enough to tackle this complex issue.
Many will try to tell us it's at a very young age, five six,seven? I think the people who push this agenda are trying to indoctrinate our children at a time when they are to immature to understand the complexities of these issues.
I'm no expert but in my opinion, they shouldn't be subjected to this sort of thing until at least high school age. They need to mature and live awhile to understand life in all of its manifestations before they could possibly have an objective, educated outlook on this subject.
Joel Hovanesian
8:12 am on Sunday, January 20, 2013
Heather I understand your point. All I'm saying is life these days is tough enough. And yes there are plenty of screwed up families. I would hope there would be a screening process in place to weed those out.
My point is kids don't need any added pressure these days and I believe at some point along the way it would add pressure.
Again I am not saying the gay people are incapable or they couldn't be loving kind parents.
I probably shouldn't have even gone down this road. Again I am not trying to be disparaging to anyone. I'm sorry if it appears that way.
Bottom line, I just want whats best for the kids and in my opinion a traditional setting would be more comfortable. I'll leave it with that.
Camille Speca
8:18 am on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Joel, children should absolutely be exposed to this. It should be considered part of life in the world they live in NOW. 100 years ago, you could replace "gay marriage" with "integrated schools". It sounds absurd, but 100 years from now, it may be that your comments would sound equally as absurd.
Look, we all want to protect our kids, but gay marriage is a fact of life today, as we know it, as our kids know it and this will not change for future generations, no matter how much you may want it to. To shield them is to cripple them. It only takes a peek at suicide rates among gay high schoolers to know that tolerance taught to young children is a step in the right direction.
Indoctrination? No, tolerance.