These are soundbites that didn't make it onto the newscast. Hope to put pictures up of the folks we talked to. But here are their opinions. Give us yours, and we may put it on the CCN - Crown City News newscast!
Emily Bannon: I think that they can't discriminate based on sexual orientation, it's a basic human right.
Emily Bannon: I think that they can't discriminate based on sexual orientation, it's a basic human right.
Matthew Osbourn: I think it's fine, that they should have as much right to marry as I do or anybody else. Go for it.
Mary: I feel bad they have love, but I do believe what the Bible says, that is my standard, but it's tough, there's a lot of love and a lot of hurt.
2 comments:
No one seems to be thinking about the ramifications of this decision. To me it seems to be a loss for everyone involved, except perhaps irresponsible fathers.
Allow me to explain:
In the case of homosexual people, they have always, or at least since the Edict of Pope Innocent someplace in the nine hundreds when same gender unions were illegalized by the Roman Catholic Church,had their relationships outside of the sanction and control of society. They wrote their own agreements as individuals without the State as either the grantor or mediator. Oddly enough, this was how the Jewish People in Biblical times managed their relationships: through private contract and agreement. Having the State and the Courts now in control of defining and regulating the rights and responsibilities of homosexual people in relationships is a loss for them of freedom, individuality and perhaps the only advantage that has existed in being homosexual.
This law, will also change heterosexual marriage as we know it. This is not because as thge religeous right wing would say, of the image of men and men and women and women together in relationship, or even being in a societally legitimate relationship, but because State authorized and regulated marriage presently and still defines the rights and responsibilities of teh partners based upon their gender. "Wives" being the female partner, get one set of rights, responsibilities and assumptions, and "husbands" being teh Male partner, get another and different set. No one has considered what happens now under the law, when both partners are of the same gender.
DO homosexual people choose to be either the "husband" or the "wife"? How exactly will they be asked to designate? WIll they do so with full disclosure? has the designation "husband" and "wife" been altered to "Party A" and "Party B"? will heterosexuals be allowed now to chose along with homosexuals to be either "Party A" or "Party B"and to take now not based upon their genders, but their agreement the varying bundles of rights, responsibilities and assumptions??
Or will a more likely scenario occur where the bundles of rights, responsibilities and assumptions will be redefined and equalized by the State? If THAT occurs, and teh rights become equallized, it is likely taht teh unforseen result will be that single divorced women particularly those with Children, will becoem further economically disadvantaged.
In any case, no one is discussing or even acknowleging these issues exist, and these are the issues that will change marriage in teh United States forever.
No matter how much religious, biblical and historic facts are used against gay marriage, not much is being done against adultery and divorce. These are also condemned in the Bible. The main reason people are against it is because it they filled with fear for new cultures and lifestyles. All other sins are welcomed and legal, like capital punishment. Taking away the right to love someone is wrong and whoever wants to do that he/she is not doing God's way.
It is amazing how The United States is still called a "free country" when human and citizen rights, and the power of love that God gave to all His children, are still compromised.
Post a Comment