Please answer as honestly as you can to this question?

Question

How does 2 gay men getting married affect the sanctity of marriage?

Tim and I are planning a comittment ceremony in place of a wedding. Because some people don't want the us to get married, stating that our loving committed relationship will ruin the state of Marriage today.

We do the same things as married couples do. We go to work m-f we come home. Have dinner, relax for a while and then go to bed. We do our shopping on weekends for groceries. We do laundry then to. What is so wrong about that?

Please answer as honestly as you can.

Answer 1

In the almost 27 years that Truckinotter and I have been together I still haven't figured that one out. I also haven''t figured out our "agenda" nor how our having sex is a danger to world civilzation. Like you, we come home, we have dinner, watch TV, feed the cats, work in the garden etc etc... I know...it's the cats!
Cats don't take orders, cats have staff. Cats tend to think for themselves....as do we. Maybe that's it. Both you and your partner and me and mine have the disturbing tendancy to think for ourselves. We're thinking *outside the Box*
Uhoh.....
Thinking for one's self means we're not thinking in a way that *They* want us to; therefor we're a threat. I think I've found our so-called "agenda". It's really not us, it's the way we're thinking, the way we're living, we're just another scapegoat to Them to keep eveyone else's minds off what is really important -- like World Peace, the War, the Budget.
So when it comes right down to it, it's NOT us...it's Them.

Answer 2

There is nothing wrong with two gay men getting married.

By harboring the desire to get married, you run the roots of what marriage is, further into the heart of those who would convince you that what you want is wrong.

Two people wanting to walk through their lives bound to each other in love, commitment, and full knowledge of the realities and responsibilities of the above, should be married in my opinion.

The desire, the knowledge, the love, and the strength it takes to join your lives together IS the sanctity of marriage. I applaud you both, encourage you to go where love takes you, and ask any and all, great and small, to shelter and protect what you both share.

Good Luck and Goddess Bless.

Answer 3

It comes down to the point that so many people are willing to quibble over the semantic differences in the word "marriage". For many, it holds the qualitative force of religion behind it, and most of the religious believers in America feel that homosexuality is a "sin". This of course stops few from uttering a choice "Jesus Christ" once the hammer falls on their thumb. The Federal government should remove this semantical argument by getting out of the "marriage" business altogether. There should only be civil unions in the eyes of Washington. Marriages would be controlled by your own personal parish. This would fit both the definition of "fair" and "seperation of Church and state."

Answer 4

Oh heaven's to Betsy I have been trying to answer this Q for the past 25 minutes but each time I stretch my bony fingers across the keyboard my nose starts to tickle and I'm overwhelmed with violent onslaughts of sneezing attacks. It's quite disturbing.....yet, compelling.

Anyway...I'm boiling oats now in hope that the steamy vapors of these healthy grains will ease my discomfort. (I'm also fantasizing about a new cookie recipe with raisins, oatmeal and dried peaches).

Concerning your Q, we must first accept the fact that the word sancity derives from the Latin word "sanctus", meaning sacred / holiness.

Hence a same-sex marriage (non-church type) is automatically incapable of influencing the "sancity" of anything.

Problem solved.

Have a great civil ceremony, but call it a Union (as long as you get all the legal rights) . Then you can tell people you've been Civily Unionized..... which is way cool-er .

Answer 5

Gay marriage does not effect traditional marriage in anyway and for those people who claim "its not Gods way" stop saying that. If you believe gay marriage is wrong dont marry someone of those same sex and leave all the loving gay couples alone and let them get married! Just because you believe its wrong doesnt mean other people must as well.

Answer 6

I congratulate you on your Commitment and I wish you were able to make it a real marriage if that's what you want. It will in no way adversely affect my own marriage or that of anyone else.

With all the hate in the world, I have no idea why some people choose to get so upset by two people in love.

Answer 7

My husband and I had our ceremony on 5 Sep 1992 - after dating for a little over 2 years. We are still together and happy.

I agree with you 100% and some day laws will reflect the idea that love is a bond between two people that cannot be broken by outside forces.

Congratulations on your upcoming ceremony and we wish you only the best of luck inthe future.

Tab

Answer 8

Obviously, nothing is wrong about that.
Just found a not-new book that might interest the group. Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe, by John Boswell. New York: Villard Books, 1994. Pp. 412 + xvii. ISBN 0-679-432280
http://www.ualberta.ca/~di/csh/csh12/Boswell.html is a longish review; excerpts:
"...Briefly stated, Boswell's argument is that for a period of over a thousand years (roughly between A.D. 500 and 1500), the Catholic and Orthodox churches of Europe sanctioned a ceremony that permitted the life-long union of same-sex couples. There is nothing startlingly new about this assertion. For years, liturgiologists and anthropologists have been aware of these ceremonies. The text of the ceremony was first published in printed form in Western Europe by Jacques Goar in the seventeenth century. In an article in the famous Jahrbuch für sexuelle Zwischenstufen in 1908, P. Näcke drew attention to these rites in Albania. Näcke's contribution, which has subsequently passed into the annals of gay lore, is that he explicitly associated the practice with "Homosexualität." These ceremonies appear to have been fairly common in the Balkans well into modern times. Their existence is not seriously in question. What is problematic is how one interprets them.

In Greek and Old Church Slavonic, the ceremony of what Boswell calls "same-sex union" is identified by a difficult term that translates literally as "the making of brothers" (adelphopoiesis, bratotvorenie). Scholars familiar with the rite and the manuscripts containing it have generally believed that it was a form of collateral adoption. Much of Boswell's historical exposition is an attempt to demonstrate that this interpretation does not hold up. Interestingly, though debatably, he shows the ways in which the words for "brother" (adelphos, frater, brat) could mean homosexual companion. What creates a problem here is the difference in context in which the word could be used.

Probably no one doubts that during the Middle Ages, as before and after, many people of the same sex formed more or less permanent unions based on physical desire. What is crucial is the way in which these people understood themselves and what they did, and it is just this that is so difficult to recover. As Boswell amply showed, though perhaps somewhat inadvertently, in Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, the surviving textual evidence, which is basically the only access we have to these past lives, indicates a largely secular and classicizing context in which same-sex relations were depicted and discussed. Aside from that, there is the ideal of friendship, as in St. Aelred of Rievaulx, which may owe as much to Cicero as to Christ. All of this is simply to say that there was a particular language and certain conventions of decorum. The question then becomes that of the extent to which these linguistic and social forms shaped self-understanding and behaviour (except that these two latter terms may even be too modern). But in that case we are either thrown back into the realist-nominalist (essentialist-constructionist) controversy or, escaping that somewhat unproductive impasse, forced to re-examine the ways in which our modern understanding of religion may be just as context relative as we may postulate the mediæval understanding of sexuality was. (Does one again hear rumblings from the Vatican?)
..."

Answer 9

I don't see how 2 gay men getting married affects anyone but them, and their friends and families. If you aren't directly involved in someones life, then it shouldn't concern you. Now if one is so insecure about their marriage, that two gay guys getting married in the next-state over bothers them so much, they have alot more problems than I care to think about, and belong in mental hospital and not society.

Answer 10

Gay marriage doesn't affect the so-called 'sanctity' of marriage in any way. Let's all get married!

Answer 11

I dont think that it does. If two people that love each other want to make a commitment then they should be able to. People are going to disagree, but most wont. Its a matter of how they are raised, I think, that influences how they look at same-sex marriges/commitment. People have been involed in same-sex relationships since the Roman times, if not earlier then that...makes a person wonder what happened to make us look at it like its a bad thing.

Do what brings you joy.