Friday, December 08, 2006

Homosexual families

In case you haven't already read of it, Mary Cheney, Vice-president Dick Cheney's daughter, is having a baby with her partner of 15 years, Heather Poe. This has, not surprisingly, led the religious right wing of the Republican party to weigh in. Not that anybody asked me to do likewise, but it's the kind of topic this blog exists to discuss.

As I have said before, I favor homosexual marriage being legalized. I do not believe such weddings should be forced into churches that regard homosexuality as a sin. There are many ways and places to be married. The main thing is our government (state and federal) should allow legal, civil unions for consenting, adult partners. If our culture really wants children raised in stable, loving homes, this is a no-brainer.

It shouldn't by now but it still always amazes me the kinds of things the far right religious types say at such a time. So far I haven't heard them wishing Mary and her mate joy in the coming birth. They aren't saying-- isn't it great that stable, homosexual couples can experience a normal family life. Nowhere have I seen-- hey, grandma and grandpa, congratulations. Nope, instead it's-- love is no substitute for a mother and father in parenting. Are these people nuts? Do they think before they spout?

Most of that bunch have been supportive of a war that requires many mothers and fathers go off to fight and possibly be killed or maimed, but now it's every child deserves a mother and a father? Are they aware men have for centuries gone off to fight wars, search for gold, work the land, or be at a job all day and into the night. If you read the biographies of many famous male pathfinders, their wives often raised their offspring with the help of aunts, friends, grandmas, and the older children while the men were off-- finding paths.


I think the real fear of the religious right is that when people like Mary Cheney have a normal family life (with by the way loving grandparents), raising their children to be responsible citizens, it proves the lie of how evil homosexuality has to be.

These religious right wing groups are only happy when they can see gays behaving promiscuously, dressing weirdly, promoting sexual relationships with children, or ideally living celibately. When homosexual unions are instead seen to be stable, happy and loving-- some with children, the lie is shown up for w
hat it is. Part of the problem gays face is our culture working against their ability to live in healthy sexual relationships like heterosexuals. It's time we stopped listening to this abuse of religion.

Do you know how often Jesus warned against homosexuality? Try never. He might have gotten to it eventually after greed, excessive pride, phony religiosity, pomposity, hypocrisy, etc. The Bible makes a few comments about homosexuality, but in the Old Testament, it also says don't wear fabrics made of two different things. Stone to death a disobedient child, etc. The Apostle Paul spoke about how bad it was for two men to sleep together but only once and didn't mention two women. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah was not so much about homosexuality but about greed, twisted values, promiscuity, and violent, abusive sex.


It is the ideal for each baby to be born into a home with a mother and a father, but it's not how life works for many people. So, congratulations to Mary Cheney, Heather Poe, and *holding my nose* Dick and Lynn Cheney. All they should have to worry about are the same things all families with kids worry about
-- that's more than aplenty!

Because I like to illustrate any blog I write, I had a bit of a problem thinking what to use this time. I do not have any same sex paintings of couples in the house, but I did have one of a pregnant woman. Parapluie painted it when I was pregnant with my first child and a neighbor lady had asked me to pose for her. The woman offered to sculpt my head and give me the end result-- which I still have in a closet somewhere. Parapluie painted us during that process. For years, Parapluie's mother had this small painting; but after she died, Parapluie gave it to me, and I hung it in the room where I write as part of the inspirational art on my walls.

The second is a silk screening my mother-in-law made of a rooster and hen. Yes, male and female is the ideal-- Adam and Eve; Jacob, Leah, Rachel, Bilhah, and Zilpah; David and Bathsheba; Hillary and Bill (you see how well heterosexual matings always work out).

The main thing children need to have as part of their lives are on-going, strong relationships with healthy adults of the male and female type (uncles, aunts, friends, cousins, grandparents). And most of all that thing the conservative flake (no, I didn't misspell that) said didn't matter as much-- love.

19 comments:

Fran aka Redondowriter said...

Yes, I did note that Mary and her partner are expecting--and that granddaddy Dick and Mary's mom are really happy. Ideally I'd like granddaddy Dick to be a stereotypical right winger, but apparently he isn't, at least where his own family is concerned. We have two families at my school now--one two gay males with sons and two women with a daughter. If there has been any controversy, I haven't heard it. Love both your paintings.

Paul said...

Rain Jesus acknowledged that he observed the Jewish Law. Now does that mean he recognized homosexuality and lesbianism as a sin or an abomination?

Rain said...

Do you believe God created everything and that means homosexuality? do you believe some people are born with it as their natural sexual bent?

I don't know how God sees homosexuality or those like myself who would not see it as a sin. I won't go lengthily into my own opinions on it; however, living on a farm, I know it's natural in animals of which we do happen to be among.

Jesus obeyed the laws for a reason (to be without sin within his own culture but still got accused of sinning when he identified himself god). He taught that the laws had been put in place to teach principles and the principles-- genuine love being the main one-- were all that really mattered. The rules were like what children are given before they understand the 'why' behind them.

So many OT rules have since been forgotten and ignored by Christians. To add to it, as for the Ten Commandments being the basis of our legal system, there are only 3 that are right now and they are all obvious to any culture wanting to function together.

robin andrea said...

The reason we have a separation of church and state is so that the state can act without having to confer with the church. If churches don't want homosexual unions, fine, but the state should recognize when loving couples choose to have legal unions, whatever the orientation of that couple.

Terri said...

Very well done and I so agree with you. I've made no mention of this on my blog, but my son is going through a very nasty divorce right now and he's fighting for custody of the children.
My point is...that was a hetrosexual marriage which certainly is not a license that the relationship will be sustained. Parenting isn't about which sex you are...it's about making sure that parenting IS your priority!

Sandy said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Sandy said...

Funny that you have this article on your blog the same day that I find out that one of our prominent, younger, business women is homosexual. She decided to "let it be known" yesterday to a select few that she asked to spread the word. To have spent time with this younger woman, you would never EVER think she would be anything other than heterosexual so it just goes to show you/me that absolutely anything can happen and DOES happen in life. Surprised me, WOW did it, and shocked me to a point. She is a very pretty woman, divorced...one child and had been dating. I wish her all the very best!

Dick said...

I think some kind of civil union should be allowed but the term marriage is a church related word and perhaps should not be used to name a homosexual relationship. There are probably a lot more long term relationships like this than most people realize.

Another thing I can not understand is why a government that is supposed to encourage hetrosexual marriage sometimes makes it so hard for older couples to marry. The act of getting married is easy but often the woman especially has to give up most or all of her income that came from her first and likely long term marriage and the new spouse may not be allowed to add her onto his with a survivor benefit. Often the only choice left is to just live together as two legally single people, without the benefits that should go along with "marriage."

Rain said...

That is very unfortunate how the laws work against older couples marrying without losing benefits. I have heard of it before; and yes, people can just live together but lose the legal and social benefits of being married. It often isn't just the government that determines it but the kind of pension plan you had-- for those few who still get pensions. (Incidentally, I think when older couples marry or anybody with a lot of money, a prenuptial is a good idea. It protects both parties and their children if there are inheritances to be considered).

As for the word marriage being church related. It really isn't. Where it involves people, it's just the joining together of two (or could be more depending on your government) for the purposes of a family. It's a legal document,a contract, with the government as the third party for enforcement. The thing is marriage confers certain benefits and regulations-- most especially for if you divorce.

I think if churches want to say that two people aren't really married (and some will say that simply because you didn't marry in the right church or with the right attitude), that's up to them, but the government should not be into the business of defining it other than consenting, adults of legal age. I would call them all legal unions from the gov't perspective and let churches argue over who really is married in God's eyes.

What gets me with the religious right, as they go on and on about how selfish and unfair it was of Mary Cheney to have a baby, is they use as one excuse-- it's because they are not married-- which the church tries to continue to deny them legally.

Winston said...

You wrote: "Are these people nuts?" YES

And: "Do they think before they spout?" NO

This comes on some authority. I live in the middle of the buckle of the bible belt. Most of those around me are flag-waving, bible-thumping, Bush-supporting so-called Christians. They have remained predictably silent on the whole Mary Cheney affair. They distract from the news by continuing to rattle on about Bill and Monica and cigars. And Gore, I should add. Somewhere deep inside they know there has been a rupture and a hemmorrage in the Christian political party, but it is more palatable for them to ignore it since to speak on it at all would acknowledge it.

Ingineer66 said...

OK here is my 2 cents. I have very good knowledge of this subject. I have always been for civil unions that have equal legal meaning as a marriage, but I have been against calling it a legal marriage. Anymore I guess maybe it doesnt matter what you call it, if two people love each other and commit themselves to each other they should get the same benifits as being married. I mean look at all the Hollywood so called marriages that last a few weeks or months. Right now in my family the longest running relationship is a gay relationship. Everyone else is either divorced or has been with their spouse less time. So why shouldnt they be able to have some kind of legal binding union. And as for adopting or having kids, love is really all that is required. Yes it may be different than what is traditional and it may be difficult, but if both parents love the child and make it a priority, I say let them give it a shot. It is a lot better than some of the white trash families around here that abuse their kids.

Mary Lou said...

Oh I agree! THere NEEDS to be a legal union between two people who wish to commit to each other regardless of their sexual persuation. So many things are dependant on the NEXT OF KIN and sometimes that is a partner that is not recognized legally. insurance, medical rights, deaths, etc.

We really need to legalize this.

(damn, I would love to have read what the deleted comment was! musta been nasty for you to block it!)

Paul said...

Rain it sounds like situational ethics to me . Is that what you believe? :)

Rain said...

Paul, I don't think that God ever said two men or two women can't 'marry.' I think assuming he cares about that kind of thing for any of us, his main concern would be that people treat each other in the right way. To me, that would mean marriage would be great in his mind between two loving people, who didn't go out and behave promiscuously-- regardless of sex. Treat others as you wish to be treated. That's what 'I' think God wants.

Sure there are situations that impact what we might do. That was discussed Biblically too. David and his men ate the bread intended for religious ritual because it was needed. David also had sex with a married woman and got her pregnant. What did God condemn in that? When to hide what he had done and take that woman for his own by arranging to see that her husband was killed in battle, God set a price on that betrayal; but even then David was a man after God's own heart. Why? I think because his heart was right toward God even when he did something that wasn't good. He was, however, not permitted to build the temple because of the blood he had spilled, but he's still considered one of the main examples of godly example in churches.

Of course there are situations that people understand are right one time when other times they'd be wrong (lying and stealing come immediately to mind as times that could happen).

Knowing what you can or cannot do and still stay right with God comes out of knowing the principles and living them. It gives freedom from rigid hidebound rules. And if it causes for a goof, well I'd still rather live that way than by rigid rules, scared to death of God's wrath if I fell down on one. That is dealt with Biblically (story of the talents) too.

Rain said...

Incidentally, I think this goes back to that earlier blog I wrote on ideology or philosophy. A philosophy can look at things, as have been mentioned by many here but especially ingineer with his family example, and see that allowing civil unions for everyone is more fair given we do not choose our sexual orientation. If some Christians are bothered by the government calling it marriage, a philosophy that only cares about the end goal would say okay and for civil, legal purposes we'll call it civil unions for all. Let churches define marriage to suit themselves.

Rain said...

oh and on that deleted comment. I didn't remove it. The author did. My guess is it was a double posting which happens sometimes but since I didn't see it, maybe they thought twice about commenting

Ingineer66 said...

Being gay is not a disease that we can treat like the measles. Some people are wired that way and there is nothing we can do about it. So we might as well accept it. Now I am not saying we need to promote it and flaunt it, but it is not going away.
And if God didnt want to have gay people he would not have created them.

Paul said...

If a person is gay that's fine , but I don't want the lifestyle shoved in my face as it often is today via the media et al. Say what you, will the traditional family is not Bob,Ted and the kids.

Ingineer66 said...

You are correct the traditional family is not 2 dads or 2 moms and I think it will always be mom dad and 1.7 kids, but there is a place for alternate families. I am a firm believer in dont ask dont tell.