AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Free Dating


posted 4/16/2010 8:40:41 PM |
5 kudosgive kudos what's this?
    report abuse

I want to get married. So does my friend. When I get married, I want my prospective mate to be recognized by the courts, to be covered financially in the case of my unfortunate demise, to be considered first for guardianship of my children once again in case I die. My friend wants all this to. When I get married, I will be able to take that marriage certificate across state borders, and anywhere I choose, and it will be recognized and honored, but not him. What’s the difference between my friend and I? I’m a straight man. He happens to be gay. You may wonder why I would be so concerned about gay rights. Being a straight man I do not have to fear repercussions. I don’t have to worry about whether or not politicians will honor my marriage. I don’t have to fear for my life in some circles just because of my sexuality. But this isn’t about my marriage or who my bedmate is.
Lets take a look at freedom for a second. As an American citizen I have freedom of speech. This blog shows that I have access to a little known right called Freedom of the press. We have the freedom to peaceably assemble. We have the freedom to bear arms for purposes of our own civil defense. We have the freedom to shut the hell up if we are being implicated in a court of law. We have many freedoms because we are supposed to be a free country.
Now let’s try a little experimentation with our freedoms. Lets say that the courts will no longer recognize the freedom of speech from Tea Party Conservatives (I know, that will never happen, none of these scenarios will). Let’s say that liberals no longer have the right to peaceably assemble. And while we are at it, we’ll say that citizens of Texas as well as anyone from Texas by FEDERAL mandate are no longer allowed the right to bear arms. Just imagine such a world. Are you Imagining it? What do you think would happen? I’ve got an idea of what would happen. The Tea Party would call for revolution. The liberals would call for revolution. Texas? Texas would get armed too the teeth and call for revolution. The scary thing is that they would be right to do so. Why? Because their freedoms reflect our freedoms.
I call myself liberal so I am not inclined to go too a Tea Party rally unless I want to throw rotten tomatoes. I’m probably not going to move to Texas any time soon but freedom stems from the choice. With freedom of speech, we have the freedom to choose what we say, and how we say it. Freedom of religion means that we have the freedom to choose how we worship, or even IF we worship. I should be able to choose to go to a Tea Party rally and not fear speaking my mind. I should be able to live in Texas and own a gun if I want to, if it is in my nature. Well, that is if I CHOOSE to. You strip away these rights from one group of people, the most basic rights, and that sets a precedent for the government to follow. They now realize that they can tell ANY political group that they no longer have the freedom of speech. They can now deny any group the right to peaceably assemble, and they can tell any state that they no longer have the right to bear arms.
The government continues to deny homosexual marriage. Now, I don’t want to marry a dude. I really do not. Freedom stems from choice though, and the minute the Government tells me I do not have a choice… Well… That’s when they tell the citizens of the United States that they are not truly free. Only when the choice is open to us can we really be free… The beautiful thing about this choice is that if you do not like homosexual marriages, you don’t have to be in one.
Today was the National Day of Silence to protest the persecution of homosexuals. Today I took an oath of silence to not only protest for their freedoms, but for ours as well.

Copy & paste to friend: (Click inside box; Ctrl + C to copy; Ctrl + V to paste)

   read more blogs!

Blogs by weylinalastair:
You ever get the feeling that you are trying to drive a car with no gas?
An observation of what could have been.....
Bottle wisdom
My Bucket List
Jeers to the conservative right!
Concerning the ecological disaster in the Gulf Coast
One thing I dont like about this site.....
An audition monologue
An Imbolc story part 2
An Imbolc story
One Step Short, Scene one, part two...
MY LATEST WORK... One Step Short.... Scene one, part one...
I HATE YOU ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Dear Prudence, won't you come out and play?"
The sandwich maker, a conclusion....
The sandwich maker


post a comment!


Apr 16 @ 9:03PM  
That is very well written. I did not know today was supposed to be a day of silence.

Apr 16 @ 9:10PM  
Most people do not know that much about homosexuals. That breeds fear and fear breeds discrimination. It has been the same for any misunderstood group through the ages. Until people understand that just because someone is different it does not make them evil or someone to be feared you will continue to see laws like the ones that prevent them from enjoying the same rights as everyone else. Is it right? I do not think so. I think anyone should have the right to marry the adult human of their choice. My question is why those who oppose it think it is going to bring down society if these people have the same rights they enjoy? I believe it is because it is human nature to want to feel superior to someone. And if we want to see where that can lead you need to look no further than Germany and the events leading up to WWII.

Apr 16 @ 9:22PM  
Thanks for taking the time to write this blog...kudos. It was a good read...and I learned some things I did not know.

Apr 16 @ 10:18PM  
I Love Your Passion...You write very well!!! Kudos

Answer me this..and I will STFU! Where Did Marriage Come from?

Apr 16 @ 10:55PM  

I googled it and found this information.

The origins of marriage
The institution of marriage is now the subject of a bitter national debate. How did marriage begin—and why?

How old is the institution?
The best available evidence suggests that it’s about 4,350 years old. For thousands of years before that, most anthropologists believe, families consisted of loosely organized groups of as many as 30 people, with several male leaders, multiple women shared by them, and children. As hunter-gatherers settled down into agrarian civilizations, society had a need for more stable arrangements. The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia. Over the next several hundred years, marriage evolved into a widespread institution embraced by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans. But back then, marriage had little to do with love or with religion.

What was it about, then?
Marriage’s primary purpose was to bind women to men, and thus guarantee that a man’s children were truly his biological heirs. Through marriage, a woman became a man’s property. In the betrothal ceremony of ancient Greece, a father would hand over his daughter with these words: “I pledge my daughter for the purpose of producing legitimate offspring.” Among the ancient Hebrews, men were free to take several wives; married Greeks and Romans were free to satisfy their sexual urges with concubines, prostitutes, and even teenage male lovers, while their wives were required to stay home and tend to the household. If wives failed to produce offspring, their husbands could give them back and marry someone else.

When did religion become involved?
As the Roman Catholic Church became a powerful institution in Europe, the blessings of a priest became a necessary step for a marriage to be legally recognized. By the eighth century, marriage was widely accepted in the Catholic church as a sacrament, or a ceremony to bestow God’s grace. At the Council of Trent in 1563, the sacramental nature of marriage was written into canon law.

Did this change the nature of marriage?
Church blessings did improve the lot of wives. Men were taught to show greater respect for their wives, and forbidden from divorcing them. Christian doctrine declared that “the twain shall be one flesh,” giving husband and wife exclusive access to each other’s body. This put new pressure on men to remain sexually faithful. But the church still held that men were the head of families, with their wives deferring to their wishes.

When did love enter the picture?
Later than you might think. For much of human history, couples were brought together for practical reasons, not because they fell in love. In time, of course, many marriage partners came to feel deep mutual love and devotion. But the idea of romantic love, as a motivating force for marriage, only goes as far back as the Middle Ages. Naturally, many scholars believe the concept was “invented” by the French. Its model was the knight who felt intense love for someone else’s wife, as in the case of Sir Lancelot and King Arthur’s wife, Queen Guinevere. Twelfth-century advice literature told men to woo the object of their desire by praising her eyes, hair, and lips. In the 13th century, Richard de Fournival, physician to the king of France, wrote “Advice on Love,” in which he suggested that a woman cast her love flirtatious glances—“anything but a frank and open entreaty.”

Did love change marriage?
It sure did. Marilyn Yalom, a Stanford historian and author of A History of the Wife, credits the concept of romantic love with giving women greater leverage in what had been a largely pragmatic transaction. Wives no longer existed solely to serve men. The romantic prince, in fact, sought to serve the woman he loved. Still, the notion that the husband “owned” the wife continued to hold sway for centuries. When colonists first came to America—at a time when polygamy was still accepted in most parts of the world—the husband’s dominance was officially recognized under a legal doctrine called “coverture,” under which the new bride’s identity was absorbed into his. The bride gave up her name to symbolize the surrendering of her identity, and the husband suddenly became more important, as the official public representative of two people, not one. The rules were so strict that any American woman who married a foreigner immediately lost her citizenship.

How did this tradition change?
Women won the right to vote. When that happened, in 1920, the institution of marriage began a dramatic transformation. Suddenly, each union consisted of two full citizens, although tradition dictated that the husband still ruled the home. By the late 1960s, state laws forbidding interracial marriage had been thrown out, and the last states had dropped laws against the use of birth control. By the 1970s, the law finally recognized the concept of marital rape, which up to that point was inconceivable, as the husband “owned” his wife’s sexuality. “The idea that marriage is a private relationship for the fulfillment of two individuals is really very new,” said historian Stephanie Coontz, author of The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap. “Within the past 40 years, marriage has changed more than in the last 5,000.”

Men who married men
Gay marriage is rare in history—but not unknown. The Roman emperor Nero, who ruled from A.D. 54 to 68, twice married men in formal wedding ceremonies, and forced the Imperial Court to treat them as his wives. In second- and third-century Rome, homosexual weddings became common enough that it worried the social commentator Juvenal, says Marilyn Yalom in A History of the Wife. “Look—a man of family and fortune—being wed to a man!” Juvenal wrote. “Such things, before we’re very much older, will be done in public.” He mocked such unions, saying that male “brides” would never be able to “hold their husbands by having a baby.” The Romans outlawed formal homosexual unions in the year 342. But Yale history professor John Boswell says he’s found scattered evidence of homosexual unions after that time, including some that were recognized by Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches. In one 13th-century Greek Orthodox ceremony, the “Order for Solemnisation of Same Sex Union,” the celebrant asked God to grant the participants “grace to love one another and to abide unhated and not a cause of scandal all

Apr 16 @ 11:01PM  
I Say ...ask God!

Apr 17 @ 6:07AM  
Gay marriages is not a right.......or the fact that they are not allowed to get married is not taking a right away from them........this is not a constitutional item at all.........if it was they would be allowed to do it..........this is a religious item.......they are not allowed to do it because the politicians who are in charged have too many "Christians" as their constituents who wouldn't vote for them again if it was allowed because they feel that it is a violation of what God wants............we are suppose to keep church and state separate but this is one thing that proves we do not..........Yet those same Christians don't mind sending our troops overseas to fight in wars where people are killed.........I guess the part about two men lying together is more important than thou shall not commit murder.

Personally, I am all for Gay marriages. Why shouldn't two gay people that love each other be afforded the same rights as two straight people who love each other. If we truly have a God that loves us unconditionally do you really think that same God would be against two people who loved each other. Its damn amazing how and what people interpret what God is/does according to how they themselves feel. Many people are intimidated by gays because it challenges their own they use God as a reason to make it out as something is love..........there's not a lot of it as it is...........why should anyone be denied rights because they don't fit into the norm. JMO

Apr 17 @ 1:42PM  
I'ma leave you one of my coveted green nuts.. cuz this was good.

Jun 18 @ 12:19PM  
I realize this is an Old blog, but I just stumbled upon it and decided it was still worth a comment and a kudo.

But you have to share the kudo with RJ as well, for her comment.

free dating | mission statement | testimonials | safety warning | report abuse | safe list | privacy | legal | 2257 | advertise | link to us

© Copyright 2000-2016 Online Singles, LLC.