Carrie Wigal

Homosexual Marriage: Door Wide Open

Posted: May 29th, 2008 under Faith/Religion, Politics.
Comments: 6

6 Responses to “Homosexual Marriage: Door Wide Open”

1. Comment from Elizabeth:
   May 29th, 2008 at 3:13 pm

   I think this commentator succinctly summed up the decision of the California Court. She also addressed some of the issues such as benefits. In light of the bigger picture, this is NOT about equality for gays to marry. It is about an alternative lifestyle being forced down the throats of mainstream Americans as “acceptable” and “normal”. Sad is the world we live in when one’s charatcter is based off their sexuality. By the way, according to the commentary, there is already a law on the books in California that grants same-sex couples the benefits of hetero couples.

   http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=65552

2. Comment from Darren Shupe:
   June 16th, 2008 at 9:34 pm

   This decision, which became final and applicable about an hour and a half ago, will affect nobody but those couples who choose to avail themselves of the opportunity it presents them to marry and thus enjoy rights fully equal to those heterosexuals who have been given that opportunity for many years.

   Calling gays’ love for one another an “alternative lifestyle,” as Elizabeth terms it, is a loaded term. Many scientific studies have demonstrated that homosexuals are built that way, and that they don’t simply choose thier sexual orientation; we have also seen that many animals go after partners of their own gender. But why not simply give people the opportunity to do what they choose to do? I don’t care if someone wants to marry six guys and five girls. We don’t get to live that long on this earth, and I’d rather see people maximizing their opportunities to love one another than see them forbidding others’ choices as somehow “morally wrong.”

   Homosexual marriage is inevitable, and the proposition on the November ballot will fail because Californians are beginning to recognize that old superstitions are not applicable to the way we live life today, and cause palpable harm to those are are affected by those superstitions. You may be entitled to your interestingly anachronistic religious views, but please restrict them to this blog and keep them out of our political life and our jurisprudence. We here in California don’t have much use for them. Thanks in advance.

3. Comment from Elizabeth:
   June 17th, 2008 at 12:31 am

   Hi Darren!
   I found your reply to be interesting to say the least. As humans, we are born with different genetic predispositions. That doesn’t necessarily make them “normal”. As far as the comparison to animals, I take isssue with it. Are you suggesting as humans that we have no control over our natural desires or instincts? We don’t have the critical thinking skills or the God-given will to abstain from certain behaviors? Case in point, at least one grandparent from each side of my family was an alcoholic. That would make me genetically predisposed to be an alcoholic; correct? Now, I have a choice. I can either give in to the desire to drink like a fish, or I can choose to abstain.

   To my knowledge there are no conclusive peer reviewed studies that determine people are born homosexual. If there are studies, please enlighten me (I say this without sarcasm because written tone can be hard to distinguish). I DO believe that certain social and relational factors can contribute to same-sex attraction. However, the lifestyle is still a CHOICE. There are organizations that work with homosexuals who wish to leave the lifestyle and recovering homosexuals. Also, according to a study conducted by the University of Chicago, roughly three to five percent of the population in the U.S. claimed to be homosexual. Why should the rights of a minority (based on sexual preference, not race or gender) be allowed to trounce the the rights of the majority?

   Please don’t forget that the Defense of Marriage Act was passed by 37 state legislatures (which clearly defines marriage as being one man and one woman). Yet, this has been repeatedly ignored by activist judges and politicians. As far as allowing people to do what they want- there’s a limit to everything. There has to be a boundary to make sure that there is not a “free for all”. I envision a building; knock out its foundation, and the building will fall. I picture the same thing happening to our country at this time. Certain people want to knock out the cornerstone and have an “anything and everything goes” society. However, that liberal utopia has far reaching consequences. Our Founding Fathers based our nation’s Constitution off of a moral society that could govern themselves. You are free to disgree, but we are close to jumping off a cliff on that point.

   As far as my “interestingly anachronistic religious views”, I can only say “Thank-you”. I plan on keeping them, no matter how much of an opiate you may think it is for me. Religion is an opiate for the masses; right? Just remember, that anachronisitc religion of mine set the tone for a lot of the basic modern day laws that serve to protect your life and property. The Code of Hammurabi, my foot!

   Nice chatting with you, Darren from Cali!

4. Comment from Carrie Wigal:
   June 17th, 2008 at 1:18 am

   Hi Darren,

   Thanks for stopping by. I respectfully disagree with you.

   1. Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples will not give homosexuals the same “rights” as heterosexuals.

   For one thing, same-sex couples cannot procreate. It is completely impossible…never gonna happen.

   While there are a percentage of heterosexual couples who are unable to conceive for various reasons, it is guaranteed that every single homosexual couple will never be able to do so because they are not made that way. Whether you believe there is a God who created us all or opt for the freak accident theory, the fact remains that only when a sperm comes together with an egg will a new life be created. And only men carry sperm and women carry eggs.

   Another problem concerns raising children: a child needs what both a mother and a father can give; two “daddies” or two “mommies” will never provide the same benefit as one of each. While many single parents do the best they can when their spouse is no longer with them, it is clear that the child “misses” the other parent in more ways than one. While a same-sex couple may desire to have/raise children, there is significant proof that children NEED both a mom and a dad to develop more fully.

   2. As for having the same “legal rights” as heterosexual couples, same-sex couples already had this in California through “civil unions”. There was no need to redefine “marriage” to include same-sex couples in order to give equal “legal” rights.

   It seems to me that same-sex couples just want to be treated as “normal”, just like heterosexual couples. Maybe they don’t want attention drawn to the fact that they are gay because they believe deep down in their gut that “being gay” is not normal and it greatly disturbs them. Maybe they desire to have/raise children and feel that being “married” will somehow benefit them in the eyes of society.

   I’d love to hear specifically what these same-sex couples want and how they believe redefining marriage will give it to them.

   3. Allowing people the opportunity to do whatever they choose is not reasonable…there needs to be some moral code somewhere. Otherwise child molestation among other detestable acts will run rampant.

   4. I don’t believe that the majority of Californians find traditional marriage equates with “old superstitions”. Who knows what will happen in November, but it is a crying shame that the Supreme Court of California got away with legislating from the bench as they did and blatantly ruled against the will of the majority of its citizens.

   5. As for leaving religious views out of our political life, what exactly are you referring to? Laws in general are based on a sense of right and wrong. That sense of right and wrong must come from somewhere. Where do you propose they originate?

   Is murder wrong? How about lying? Stealing? Cheating? Raping little babies? Who says that these things are wrong?

   I believe there is a God and He determines what is right and what is wrong. What do you believe?

5. Comment from Gwyneth:
   August 12th, 2008 at 10:49 am

   How can you compare the love between two people with raping babies or murder? you are too extreme. What would you do if one of your children was homosexual or a lesbian? Then how would you feel?
   I believe that God believes in love and he loves all his people.

6. Comment from Carrie Wigal:
   August 13th, 2008 at 2:37 pm

   Hi Gwyneth,

   I believe God, the Creator of the Universe does love us. The reason I believe this is because the Bible says so.

   But loving us is not the same as turning a blind eye to sin.

   The Bible teaches homosexual behavior is sin, along with a gazillion other no-no’s (such as lying, cheating, stealing, murder, etc.).

   “Love” in the sense of care or affection is not considered sinful, but sexual love outside of the institution of marriage is. Adultery is sin. Rape is sin. Sodomy is sin.

   All of these sins have consequences. Not because I said so, or even the law of the land as it is written, but rather God, our Creator said so in the Bible.

   Just because we sin, that doesn’t mean God stops loving us. Yes, He loves us, but he detests the sin. It is the sin that gets in the way of Him having a relationship with His creation. He is a perfect Being who wants to have a relationship with us imperfect beings.

   Choosing to live a homosexual lifestyle is a choice, regardless of what some folks try to promote. Homosexual behavior is a behavioral choice. We are not “made that way”. We are made as sexual beings to fit together, male and female. That is how God designed us.

   If my children chose to live a homosexual lifestyle, I would be devastated, but that does not mean I would love them any less. I would be heart-broken because they chose to live a sinful lifestyle. I would also be heart-broken if they chose to cheat on their spouse. But again, that doesn’t mean I would love them any less.

   When we talk about “wrong” behavior, we’re talking about condemning the *behavior*, not the individual. The individual is a creation of God and is to be valued. The choices he/she makes, however is a different story.