Monday, June 11, 2012

Gay Marriage?

It is very rare that my blog varies from motorcycling content, and I very rarely use if for social commentary. The main reason for that is that I tend to be a bit of a fence sitter when it comes to most topics.  It annoys me that I am like that , but most of the time I can always see both sides of the story...and therefore struggle to form a hard and fast opinion from just one view point.

And on this particular topic I am the same, I am neither for or against it.  To those that know me this may come as a surprise.  But I am afraid it just doesn't bother me one way or the other. What I do find amusing and I do have an opinion about is those who oppose it based on "the Sanctity of Marriage" argument.

Allowing gay marriage would diminish the sanctity of marriage?  Really?  I find this one a bit hard to stomach. Why?

Several reasons really and here are a few...just a few....the list could go on forever.

Britney Spears...annulled after 24hours,

That stupid Kadashian women...... don't try to tell me that was love, just a money making scheme.

That presidential candidate from a few years back that was caught with a love child while his wife dealt with cancer....

Do I need to go on.....?

Those that claim the sanctity of marriage needs to be preserved, need to take a long and hard look at what dominates the crap that is E-Channel.

A marriage is only special and sacred if the two people in it keep it that way.  Does it matter then, if both people in that loving and committed marriage are of the same sex?

 In New Zealand we have Civil Unions, where upon entering into one, all the benefits  of a normal married couple are inherited. This include issues like immigration, social welfare and matrimonial property  But it is not marriage.  It is not called marriage.  It is different.

The values that  gay couples exhibit in their daily lives are often indistinguishable from those of their straight neighbors. They're loyal to their mates, are monogamous, devoted partners. They value and participate in family life, are committed to making their neighborhoods and communities safer and better places to live, and honor and abide by the law. Many make valuable contributions to their communities, serving on school boards, volunteering in community charities, and trying to be good citizens. In doing so, they take full advantage of their relationship to make not only their own lives better, but those of their neighbors as well. ..Scott Bidstrap

OK, so that is my view for a change....normal motorcycle mayhem and gravel rash adventures will resume on the next installment.


  1. hear hear! agree totally. I am like you in that I am a "fence sitter" as I can usually see both sides to a situation! Nicely put, Roger.

  2. Roger,
    It has always seemed to me the government should only be involved in the contractual and business stuff of what has been called marriage, but has always been a civil union. I think the government should get out of the marriage business. In the eyes of the state all should be civil unions. As you pointed out the union of two people " only special and sacred if the two people in it keep it that way." If two people chose to enter into a marriage defined and blessed by a sanctifying body this is all well good and as a clergyman, a divorced one at that, I believe there is an intangible added which helps weather many a trial. That said, the state should be interested in the legal issues of creating and when need be dissolving households. And, society should be interested in educating and making resources available to raise up healthy citizens. Oh well, I've gone on a bit. Enough.

    1. Well said Keith, very nicely put to be honest. I think you make very valid points.

  3. Well said, Rogey. I guess you're on to something. Here are my two cents...

    I am not a religious person, so the expression of 'sanctity of marriage' is imho simply religious business talk.

    Being faithful and true to each other has nothing to do with sexual orientation.

    My better half and I neither wanted and nor needed to do the whole ecclesiastic show. We are legally bonded, and you may call it marriage, civil union or partnership... I honestly couldn't care less. The important thing is: We love each other and (legally) belong together.

    And no matter how society may call the bond of two people, first and foremost it has to be taken seriously, and should be lived by being a devoted, loving, faithful, and supportive partner.

    1. Sonja: My personal belief is more and more people are taking a stance similar to the one you have just mentioned. I personally think there are way bigger issues in this world than worrying about "defining" marriage.

      A very nicely put reply, thanks.

  4. Well...I think this may have come about, 'the sanctity' of marriage when there was much less separation of church and state. Where government took care of the safety and church took care of the spiritual. Then the church started making money and was able to start buying politics.

    The sanctity of marriage was being able to procreate, not how good a person you were. In this day and age, I think it is less of a concern with all the different ways to conceive.

    I think now it is just people being afraid. I just wish people were nice to themselves and each other and could just let everyone live in peace without trying to dictate how others should live.

    1. Lori: Couldn't agree with you more, and I think you have touched on very relevant topics.

      Your last statement really does sum things up.

  5. Rog mate!

    Clearly a controversial subject and given the number of church scandals or conflict world-wide involving most denominations, it's pretty hard to look to them for spiritual guidance.

    I'm with Lori in that people should simply try to treat others in a decent manner and stop interfering - there are more pressing things in the world that people with influence could turn their hand to.

    I'm with you 100% buddy!

    1. Geoff: Thanks for your unconditional support. I agree that there are far more pressing issue's in the world than defining marriage.

      I normally avoid discussing like these at all cost's, I just thought there was a degree of irony in those that spout "sanctity" of marriage as the reason gay marriage should not be allowed.

      I think I made my point though.

  6. I would have to agree word for word with Sonja. My thoughts are the same, but i wouldn't have been able to say it as well as she did.

    Brad and aren't religious either and would be committed to each other even without our 'certificate of proof', but in order to enjoy the rights as married couples back in the day, we needed the ceremony. Otherwise we couldn't have enjoyed the benefit of Brad moving to the USA ( there are no restrictions on a spouse becoming a resident alien) or even be able to visit each other in the ER if an emergency arose.

    I think a same sex couple in love should be treated just as any man/woman. Discrimination based on sexual orientation just pisses me off.

    1. Brandy: I think your last sentence sums things up pretty well.

      In the society we live in there are always extremes, and topic like this will always be controversial. I am in no doubt that NZ will grant it in the future some time. I think the crux of it is most GLBT just wish to be treated fairly.

  7. I was gonna write up more, but it was turning into a novel, so suffice to say I agree with you. I don't get it either. For all the reasons you listed and a few others. The real threat to the sanctity of marriage? How about adultry/affairs/abuse, you know those niggling little things that tear families apart. At least that's my humble opinion.

    Two people who love each other and are commited to one another are no threat. If anything I think that is a strength.

    1. Kari: You could of written more, and you statement is very true. The real threat is with in...not from with out. You come across as having some strong views on this and I am glad you have taken the time to comment.

  8. Dear Sir:

    It is my personal conviction that same-sex couples desiring to formalize all the horror and torture that made my first two marriages the model conditioning for guests of the North Korean secret police should have that option.

    I seem to recall spending many more hours attempting to get unmarried than I did in initiating the matrimonial process. The purchase of a marriage license comes with no training, no testing, and nothing like posting a bond to prevent walking away from a child thrust on society, when wedded bliss turns to ashes.

    To my way of thinking, there should be nothing to prevent two people from officially joining themselves to each other. Naturally, those who subscribe to a particular religious persuasion may have to make adjustments, as the conventions here are not likely to change anytime soon. Yet to me, a civil union is as much of a commitment as anything else. I discovered they are as binding as fucking quicksand.

    Fondest regards,
    Twisted Roads

    1. Jack: You had me in stitches reading this reply, very well put, and of course offers a new perspective on the topic. You have an uncanny knack of saying what I am thinking.....

      Thanks for popping in.

    2. Very well written post on what still seems to be a controversial topic. +1 to all the comments.

  9. I loved reading this. I am going to a lesbian wedding this weekend and they have been together 9 years...they are more devoted and loving to each other than most straight couples. We need to accept love in all its shapes and forms.

    1. Glad you enjoyed the read. And thanks for stopping buy.

  10. led downlight manufacturer That doth exalt himself shall be abased,
    brought Kitchener to public notice. He was officially thanked and

    my homepage: led light manufacturer
    My web site :: led lights manufacturer