When I first came out to family and friends, and even a select few co-workers 30 years ago, the discussion of same sex marriage was really not apart of my, or anyone else's conversation. It was not part of my primary concern, or could I even fathom the idea that one day it would happen.

 

My biggest concern was that after a whole childhood of silent screams and feelings of loneliness, that I could finally open up to the important people in my life to help them understand, and hopefully accept me in order that I may live in this world without that ever present feeling that I was suffocating.

 

I craved too to freely be in a loving relationship, and to experience the cuddles and comforts of human embracing that I witnessed so many of my straight friends enjoy without being viewed as some sort of sexual deviant, or a feeling that I would always have to live my life in secrecy.

 

Thankfully for me things worked out as about as well as I could've imagined where freedom continued in my life to breed freedom, and an ever growing breath of fresh air that what I had fears might never happen for me was finally happening, and every new day brought me the sense that I was walking further and further away from that dark place inside of that closet.

 

That was my personal experience, but sadly I saw many others who were not as lucky and blessed as I was, and their lives were forever riddled with issues of abandonment and sadness.

 

My biggest wish all these years was that as time went by, that society would little by little ease up on its misunderstandings, and that teenaged kids could possibly get a freer sense earlier on that life was going to be kind to them, hopefully preventing the multitudes of teen suicide that many times went unnoticed as kids fearing his or her future, since it was unlikely that before ending their lives they ever communicated their feelings to anyone. Those sad statistics of this will never truly be known.

 

I had long ago pretty much accepted that marriage would not be apart of the equation for me or others, and that in an existential sort of way I would just live my life that way I saw fit regarding relationship, knowing that I couldn't really wait around for society or religion to present for me a way to exist that was acceptable to them. I had my life to live, and couldn't waste precious time living by their misinformed rules.

 

As the topic of same sex marriage began to pick up speed, I was pretty much surprised by it, and although I've always been cool with the idea, personally it wasn't much of a concern because I had already created for myself all the freedoms that I personally desired in life.

 

Same sex marriage certainly wasn't advanced by me, not because I didn't approve, but just because it wasn't a big concern for me personally. I see it as a huge milestone in acceptance, but still it has never been as extremely important to me as it has been for so many others.

 

I do however see it as a great way to help gay culture, which has often been viewed as, or fell into the empty trap of being highly promiscuous because monogamy hasn't always been promoted considering the rest of the world hasn't always been acceptant of solidly established gay couples, or living in the public eye as a gay couple could often be awkward, that now promotion of acceptable gay unions can be celebrated and encouraged rather than gays living a life in secrecy with multiple partners.

 

Long before the world officially validated me, I had already validated myself, and while I'm happy that the world has loosened up on the matter, and I'm happy to finally see the world in a much more acceptant place than when I first came out, I'm personally content with living my life in the existential way that I had created for myself long ago.

 

It's unlikely that I personally will ever marry, and I wish all the luck in the world that those who do have great success with it, and that it brings a more complete sense of validated happiness within their lives.

 

I also hope that many young gays don't fall into the trap of doing it too early in their lives just to become part of the new trend.

 

Marriage is a real commitment, and anyone gay or straight really better know that they are truly ready for it, or else divorce lawyers are going to get even more richer than they already are, and young gays rushing into things can soon find themselves in a world of issues just like many divorced straights have experienced.

 

I will have to say that I am tremendously surprised by how fast things came around regarding this issue, and if asked a few months ago I would have said that the 12 or so states that still didn't accept it would continue to be an issue for a long time to come. I hadn't even considered that in one day the Supreme Court would change all of that, so I was probably as surprised as anyone if not more so, that all of the sudden same sex marriage is legal throughout the entire nation.

 

While that was a big surprise for me, it's been no surprise that the entire nation of citizens wouldn't just automatically accept the Supreme Court decision. The change in statistics there will take some time, and I've no doubt that there will ever be complete acceptance throughout the land, but little by little in general it will become for most a dead passe' no big deal topic with an ever present assortment of certain christian types continuing their cry of disapproval. It will be interesting however to see in 20 years from now if those cries are as loud as they are now, or if they too will just fade out.

I guess that is where the problem comes in. Not agreeing with same sex marriage is one thing, being "against" same sex marriage has other implications.

 

Maybe the larger issue is the whole institution of marriage.

Semantics as far as I'm concerned. I have gay relatives and friends. I don't agree with their lifestyle choice any more my friends who are adulterers. Against, opposed, anti. All the same. I don't agree with it. It's really not complicated for me.

Semantics as far as I'm concerned. I have gay relatives and friends. I don't agree with their lifestyle choice any more my friends who are adulterers. Against, opposed, anti. All the same. I don't agree with it. It's really not complicated for me.

 

Are there really those who still think that?

 

You're right, I've been lying all along...from as far back as I can remember it's all just been a choice when I really was straight and forewent my natural desires for woman just to be with men all for the heck of it. Sounds logical don't you think?

I don't care one way or the other about same sex marriage. But if I was a divorce attorney I would definitely be for it.

Are there really those who still think that?

 

You're right, I've been lying all along...from as far back as I can remember it's all just been a choice when I really was straight and forewent my natural desires for woman just to be with men all for the heck of it. Sounds logical don't you think?

im not gonna argue with you. I hope your happy. It still doesn't change my opinion. You can attack me all you like. A few judges opinions haven't changed that for me.

Edited July 22, 201511 yr by spindoc

I don't care one way or the other about same sex marriage. But if I was a divorce attorney I would definitely be for it.

 

I think this is where the big shift has come about. I don't see it as the "traditional marriage (i.e. religious)" crowd vs. "non-traditional marriage" crowd. To me it has become predominately a battle between the "traditional marriage (i.e. religious)" crowd vs. "I don't really care, it doesn't affect me" crowd. It's probably been 6 or 7 years ago on the O'Reilly Factor and Dennis Miller was on there discussing a same sex couple adopting a child, which has been a rallying cry for those against same sex marriage. He eloquently conveyed that there are so many bigger issues to consume our lives with instead of trying to pile on a loving and caring couple that will raise a fine child.

 

Where the anti-same sex marriage loses credibility is harping on protecting the sanctity of marriage, when marriage's sanctity with divorce, adultery, etc. went out the window eons ago. People don't like having that as proof as to why same sex marriage should be prohibited. It is not gay people "ruining" traditional marriage, it is traditional marriage people ruining (or that ruined) traditional marriage.

im not gonna argue with you. I hope your happy. It still doesn't change my opinion. You can attack me all you like. A few judges opinions haven't changed that for me.

 

You're certainly free to have an opinion on same sex marriage, and I'm not calling you out on that as that's your deal, but I'm aiming at one specific word that always seems to be apart of this discussion.

 

Choice

 

What puzzles me is when time and again millions of gays including myself say that they know that without a doubt they did not choose to be attracted to the same sex, so many who oppose, no matter how many times they hear it, still insist that being attracted to the same sex is a choice.

 

What in the world keeps people clinging to that misconception?

 

Do they fear that accepting that as a reality will shake the very foundations of their perception, and it just might make them have to go back to the drawing board and rethink it?

 

I'm guessing that it does, and that some would much rather stay ill-informed even with loads of proof right in their face, then to challenge themselves to have a more accurate understanding.

 

I know that you can't speak for everyone, but using you as an example, how after hearing so many gays say that they did not choose to be attracted to the same sex can you still consider it a choice, and I'm not talking about acting on their attractions, I'm speaking of having that attraction in the first place.

 

Those coming from a particular moral foundation that says that it is wrong will say that acting on it is a choice and is wrong. That's a whole different can of worms related to moral perception which is nothing more than an opinion where I'm speaking specifically about no choice in the matter of being attracted the same sex whether or not anyone acts on it or not.

 

Let's not confuse the two.

 

My mother was left handed and so am I.

 

When she was being raised years ago under the Catholic school system the nuns viewed left-handedness as a sign of the devil and forced her to write with her right hand.

 

She had no choice in having been left handed, but also little choice in resisting the nuns who forced her to write with her right hand, or else her knuckles would've suffered immensely from being smacked with a wooden ruler 'til she followed their orders come hell or high water.

 

Theoretically she could've have chosen to resist and continue to write with her left hand, but by holding the pencil in her left hand, could it really be considered a choice if that's what originally felt natural to her in the first place?

 

If not forced, she would have undoubtedly continued to write with her left hand simply because that came natural to her.

 

I do hope that we now can see how ridiculous it was of the nuns to believe what they did, and to so forcefully push this agenda on to kids which truly could be considered child abuse towards kids who were simply naturally left handed.

 

Thankfully by the time I was going to Catholic schools this ridiculous practice had been long forgotten, and I was free to just be left handed like I truly was.

 

It was not a choice for me to be left handed, and no conscious choice to act on that and pick a pencil up with my left hand. Sure I acted on my left handedness because simply that was the natural way for me to go considering that I was indeed left handed.

 

By comparison, I did not choose to be gay, but being so it was only natural that when acting on my attractions, I would naturally follow where my attractions would lead me, and that was to the same sex.

 

Should I have just forced myself (which I actually tried to) to date only women although biologically by body would not cooperate?

 

Would that be fair to me and my natural leanings, and would that be fair to a woman who would likely hope that the man in her life is truly attracted to her and could fulfill her biologically in the process.

 

I had and have zero desires for woman sexually by no choice of my own, and would have never been able to satisfy them.

 

However while growing up with adolescent hormones hopping about and developing like they typically do for a kid going through puberty, there was no mistaking biologically what stimulus was making them activate, and although through social pressures to try resist my reaction to certain stimulus, it was to no avail, without any choice in the matter from me, I was without a doubt attracted to the same sex.

 

Sure, by religious and society's standards I could've chosen to drive myself crazy and resist and be celibate, or I could follow my natural leanings and act on my natural desires, and live naturally within the reality of those natural desires.

 

With my personal understanding that society and religion (who did their best to try to confuse and brainwash me) were misguided, the decision eventually to ignore their grave fallacies became an easy one, and that my life was not going to be stifled by backward stupid nonsense from those who were incapable of understanding.

 

It was my life and they could all go to hell in the process of telling me that's were I was headed if I didn't abide by their stupid backward misinformed bull crap.

 

We hopefully can now see where the nuns on the topic of left-handedness was backward and stupid, and hopefully one day most in this world will also see the same sort of stupidity when it comes to finally understanding homosexuality and that it is not a choice, and to act on it is just following one's natural self, without the added nonsense from unprovable religious dictation, or society's ridiculous misconceptions.

 

But if you will, please help me understand how you still after all this time consider being attracted the same sex as being a choice?

 

It's not an attack on you, it's giving you an opportunity to explain and justify your comment on choice, and with the hopes that you can give some logical backup to how you still feel that way.

 

Of course you can consider the question as backing you in the corner, and cry foul and attack, but if you do I and others will just read that as that you really don't have a logical explanation, and that you're avoiding backing up your statement.

 

I too can cry foul when those who've had multiple opportunities to comprehend that being gay is not a choice and still continue to try to pass along that misinformation to others when indeed down deep they know that they are simply lying to themselves and others all for the sake of clinging to inaccurate perceptions because it feels better to them to stay misinformed than it does to finally come to an understanding.

 

You can continue to make this claim all you want, but know without doubt that I will call you, or anyone else out on it every time without fail.

 

I simply will not stand for that sort of misinformation being spread about, and I will indeed call anyone out who does to beg them to try to back it up.

After some thought I'll state my opinion like this. And I've done it before on here, so here it goes in the abbreviated version. Do I think that some folks can be born with an affinity for things? Sure I do. I have always liked brunettes, chocolate and fast acceleration. No one had to tell me that. Now do I believe that homosexual was born with that affinity? I have no doubt. So, maybe my assertion earlier was not conveyed correctly. There are those with the affinity for multiple sexual partners. Or those for both sexes. Biologically and genetically speaking there is nothing coded in us for that behavior. I challenge anyone to find it, and that given the piles of research on the issue. No markers, none. When and if that happens, I'll change my tune and it will drastically change my stance on the subject. Diabetics still can love sugars, but they choose to refrain. Maybe apples and anvils but that's my stance. I'm not asking anyone to agree. I'm not trying to sway any opinions. And I'm certainly not swayed by the ruling, by the recent social acceptance and certainly have nothing against any males nor females who live that lifestyle.

 

There's my explanation. And for those that know me well, they'll tell you that I really don't give a rip if anyone agrees with it. Probably to a fault.

After some thought I'll state my opinion like this. And I've done it before on here, so here it goes in the abbreviated version. Do I think that some folks can be born with an affinity for things? Sure I do. I have always liked brunettes, chocolate and fast acceleration. No one had to tell me that. Now do I believe that homosexual was born with that affinity? I have no doubt. So, maybe my assertion earlier was not conveyed correctly. There are those with the affinity for multiple sexual partners. Or those for both sexes. Biologically and genetically speaking there is nothing coded in us for that behavior. I challenge anyone to find it, and that given the piles of research on the issue. No markers, none. When and if that happens, I'll change my tune and it will drastically change my stance on the subject. Diabetics still can love sugars, but they choose to refrain. Maybe apples and anvils but that's my stance. I'm not asking anyone to agree. I'm not trying to sway any opinions. And I'm certainly not swayed by the ruling, by the recent social acceptance and certainly have nothing against any males nor females who live that lifestyle.

 

There's my explanation. And for those that know me well, they'll tell you that I really don't give a rip if anyone agrees with it. Probably to a fault.

 

I'm guessing that you weren't specifically responding to my last post considering that your comments were posted merely 2 minutes after mine, and it would've taken way longer than 2 minutes to read mine and then respond to it, but regardless, thank you for readdressing it, and honestly approaching it. The timing of yours and my post on the matter is coincidentally bizarre in a way, but nonetheless I have a better understanding of where you are coming from.

I'm guessing that you weren't specifically responding to my last post considering that your comments were posted merely 2 minutes after mine, and it would've taken way longer than 2 minutes to read mine and then respond to it, but regardless, thank you for readdressing it, and honestly approaching it. The timing of yours and my post on the matter is coincidentally bizarre in a way, but nonetheless I have a better understanding of where you are coming from.

It was kinda weird. And my delivery is typically not very smooth. On this site and in real life.

I'm against same sex marriage. I don't think that biologically or anatomically speaking it's natural. No brainwashing here. I wasn't raised in church or thumped over the head with the bible. I can't be convinced genetically that homosexuality is innate, so I can't make myself support the union of to folks of the same sex. It's more than Leviticus for me.

 

Really can't say I was brain washed. Neither of my parents care one way or the other. I will admit that the biggest reason for my opposition is that I think this will embolden the movement to strip churches of tax status if they refuse to perform the marriages.

Really can't say I was brain washed. Neither of my parents care one way or the other. I will admit that the biggest reason for my opposition is that I think this will embolden the movement to strip churches of tax status if they refuse to perform the marriages.

Sure might, but doesn't separation of church and state go both ways?

Sure might, but doesn't separation of church and state go both ways?

 

Maybe. But rights and liberties only exist in reality to the extent that there is a populace and government willing to enforce or protect them. Despite what the fella said, there's nothing inalienable about them. They require constant tending.

Are there really those who still think that?

 

You're right, I've been lying all along...from as far back as I can remember it's all just been a choice when I really was straight and forewent my natural desires for woman just to be with men all for the heck of it. Sounds logical don't you think?

 

I do. I don't believe you or I or anyone else chose which direction our sexual attraction would go but we did chose our lifestyle ie how to live with that attraction. A priest I have known for over a decade dated girls when I met him before he felt called to the priesthood several years ago. He did not choose to be hetrosexual, that was who he was, but he did choose a lifestyle of celibacy.

 

Lifestyle is a choice, sexual attraction for (I would guess) 90% of us ingrained.

Really can't say I was brain washed. Neither of my parents care one way or the other. I will admit that the biggest reason for my opposition is that I think this will embolden the movement to strip churches of tax status if they refuse to perform the marriages.

 

I'm guessing, and I hope that I'm not wrong, but I'm thinking that churches will be safe to decide, and if same sex marriage doesn't coincide with their teachings, that they will not be forced to abide by anything not compatible with their stance.

 

Some churches will accept it and some will not, but the Supreme Court ruling is more of a legal matter where the state has to acknowledge and allow same sex marriage. Those who would like to hold their ceremony in a church will simply need to find a church that is accepting of doing so, but I'm under the impression that those who don't accept it will continue to be free to not accept it without it interfering with their tax status.