Remember when being born American meant you had the right to the pursuit of happiness as long as you weren't hurting anyone else?

It seems now that people that are unhappy with their lives like to go out of the way to make sure everyone else is unhappy and miserable as well, and some people just like to hate on other people.

The matter of Gay Marriage or Gay Parades or Gay Events aside, what's starting to get to me is all this acrimony to people who don't believe or feel the way I feel.

For the lack of better differentiation, we'll call them the "left" and the "right."

The Right hates the Left because those Lefties condone kite flying [lest we inadvertently offend someone] which is clearly against the Word and the Word is what Righties live by. Of course not all the Righties interpret the Word the same way so there are your Index Righties, your Ring Righties, your Thumb Righties, your Pinkie Righties and then the ones who are WAAAAY out there, the One-Finger Wave Righties. Each of them interprets the Word in their own way which indeed often leads to one Rightie sect to hate one or more of the other groups but at least they ALL hate the Lefties who believe in.... well, pretty much nothing other than looking out for #1, not to be confused with the One-Finger Wave Righties.

The one thing Lefties *do* believe in is letting everyone "do his own thing" and making sure no one gets offended by having it pointed out that they are different. This core belief is rooted in Lefties' wanting to be left alone to do whatever they want to do without having to answer to anyone so they believe it's only fair that they in turn bother no one else - except of course those narrow minded, discriminatory Righties. It also is quite convenient in preventing Lefties from having to take any definite stance on anything other than hating Righties - whom they often call "Haters." Go figure....

Soooo... how is it conceivable that the group that condones homosexuality - based on their belief structures - HATES the side that condemns homosexuality - based on *their* belief structures - and calls them "Haters."

Are you people listening to yourselves? Or just prattling on to make a breeze?

Oy...

Ernie

I'll tell you what's wrong with this world......When a person who is NOT homosexual/gay, the first thing that enters their mind when they even see the word or see two people of the same sex hold hands is SEX.  PEOPLE!! It isn't about sex, it is all about LOVE.

Aprill, thanks for having the guts to write this blog!  I am strictly hetero, but believe that the government shouldn't legislate LOVE!  That's wrong.  I am also a Christian and believe that homosexual acts are a sin....HOWEVER, I also believe that God is a forgiving Deity and just because someone is gay doesn't mean they will be condemned to the fiery pits of hades....   Love the sinner hate the sin and all that.  I'm glad that California Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriages.... Yes, the Anita Bryant's of the new age will be out in force, but you know, the world is changing.  It wasn't too many decades ago that it was illegal --- ILLEGAL for an African American to marry a white person.  There were pastors, deacons, elders of different religions stating how immoral it was.... Look around today.... there are many, many interracial couples and we accept it!  The time will come when the world will accept same-sex marriages as well.  It will NOT destroy the sanctity of heterosexual marriages or take away from it.  Who is it hurting?  No one!  OK, I'm stepping down from my soapbox now.

THANKYOU APRILL FOR POSTING THIS BLOG-FROM THE GLBTVictoria

I am glad to know that I am raising my daughter in a world where she can marry/co-habitate with anyone she wants -- as long as it's not another girl. That just boggles my mind. She can marry a man on trial for a quadruple murder, but she cannot marry a woman. Sigh. I will be glad when this sort of thing no longer makes for breaking news headlines or mile-long blogs, because that will mean we've finally reached the point where we're all just living our lives and letting others live theirs. That's what I hope for. That's the world I want my daughter to live and raise her children in. Yeah, I know, I'm dreaming. But it's a nice dream, isn't it?

California voted in 2000 to uphold the definition of marriage to a one man and one woman with 61% of its electorate supporting this definition. Now a court comes along and votes 4-3 to undo what the voters placed on the books.

If two men or two women are allowed legally to marry, then government should not be in the business of  denying two siblings or one man and two women from marrying. Opening up the definition of marriage in America is quite problematic. How can you tell the two men it's okay for them to "marry" since they love each other, when a brother and a sister might love each other as well?

What about the polygamist who has two wives, and they all love one another? It's discrimanatory if the definition of marriage is changed to allow homosexuals to marry to now say that what the pollies practicies are wrong.

This is happening in the German courts rights now, as Germany, which allows gay marriage, has a case pending with a German brother and sister who love each other, have four kids, and want to marry legally.

http://www.cwnews.com/news/...

I do not agree with homosexual marriage, as I believe homosexual sex is unnatural and unhealthy. But as Ernie said, just because I disagree with some on the issue doesn't mean I hate anyone. Disagreement doesn't equal hate.  I would rather discuss this issue all day long with a calm homosexual than I would with a worked-up fundamentalist who agrees with me or a worked-up homosexual who doesn't agree with me. When you argue with emotions, logic often goes out the window.

Some good points Mary Ann. Just for discussion purposes, a court could probably solve the problem of polygamists who want to get married by defining marriage as between two people, regardless of gender.

As for the incestuous couples who wish to get married, one I would think that it would be such a miniscule sect of the population, it could probably be handled on a case by case basis and and two, courts could probably also cite the high risk of birth defects that occur when close relatives reproduce.

A good article to read on laws prohibiting incest is by law professor Joanna Grossman, who explores the topic in depth, including origins of the laws and how this issue may actually end up in a high court. The article was written in 2002 but I think it's still pretty relevant.

Just throwing some things out there for discussion. And thanks everyone for keeping it civil.

Hello Aprill,

Great point about changing the definition of marriage to marriage bewteen two people, but I think if the definition is going to be changed to favor homosexuals for gender, then one could argue that it's discrimanatory to draw the line based upon gender alone and could include number of people.

Based upon loving each other and being a family, the polygamist would have a good shot at a legal challenge too, but so far, cultural taboos have not allowed this, IMO.

Even if there are a miniscule number of incestous couples that want to marry,  should that matter in a court of law? If the court determines they have a right to marry, even if they are in the minority, they should be able to marry, not?  (sorry- Lavaca County grammar creeps in) BTW, I'm not arguing for sibling marriagae. I just see a similarity in arguments.

Thanks for the discussion and the link. I'll check it out.