It’s nice to have something to feel good about after multiple tragedies these past weeks. With the United States Supreme Court guaranteeing that same sex couples will have the right of legal marriage in every state of the union, the United States of America joins the ever expanding list of other countries who have done the same.
As a therapist, I have already witnessed the pain, the humiliation, the suicidal thoughts, the religious oppression and sometimes expulsion, societal harassment, familial alienation, the fears of coming out and being regulated as “different” or “freakish” just because they are attracted to and love someone of their same sex.
Homosexuality has been with us since the creation of the human race with a normalcy of occurrence that has not wavered. It is about time that constitutional laws are finally catching up to recognising scientific research regarding homosexuality.
The inhumanity of denying LGBT couples the same legal rights that heterosexual couples have enjoyed, has come to an end in the states and many countries in Europe. As you can see on the map though, there are still many countries here and elsewhere where this fundamental right is still denied.
Worse, the tortures and severe discrimination, where any homosexual relationship is illegal persists in 76 countries. These countries are mainly in Africa, Middle East, and southeast Asia.
Russia continues to have extremely repressive laws against LGBT citizens, where gay rights propaganda is prohibited. Unfortunately many of the old soviet bloc countries of Eastern Europe have not demonstrated any progression of gay rights either, with some like Hungary even being digressive.
Homosexuality was widely tolerated in Ancient Greek, the Celts, and Ancient Rome, but this tolerance slowly gave in to anti homosexual teachings of Christianity as it grew in importance. It was in old Europe that some of the most heinous acts of violence took place against any homosexual activity.
It reached its apogee during the Medieval era, when homosexuals, along with others deemed ‘sinful” by the church were treated like criminals and were witch hunted, tortured and executed. This only served to push those with homosexual orientations totally underground into denial, the “protected veil “of the convent and clergy or into undesired marriages to save lives.
The Catholic church, along with its Inquisition committed many sins against these innocents, including a complete evil slaughter of the Cathars, and extinction of the Nights Templar, in part fueled by beliefs of homosexual activity within these groups.
Strangely, Poland since its foundation since 966 never defined homosexuality as a crime, till Russian, Prussian and Austrian laws took over in 1795, and was the first European nation in 1932 to decriminalize homosexuality again.
Remarkable for Turkey, considering that is 98% Muslim, is that homosexuality has been legal since 1858! With the long standing very conservative government in power, I doubt we will see any progressive movement in Turkey in the future.
During the French Revolution, the National Assembly did away with laws against homosexuality. This was reversed in 1942 by the nazi controlled Vichy government, who made homosexual unions illegal for under 21 year olds, only to be repealed very late in 1982!
Homosexuals were sent to the concentration camps and the gas chambers by the Nazi, and prosecuted in Soviet Russia and Franco’s Spain. Spain has since made a complete turn around, while Russia still hangs on to post Soviet repression of gay rights. .
Denmark is credited with the first European country to legalize same sex partnerships in 1989. It was progressive Holland though, who became the first country in the world to legalize same sex marriage in 2001.
Since then, other European nations have followed suite. These include Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland, Denmark, France, U,K, Luxembourg, Spain and lastly Ireland, Finland, and Slovenia which their laws will go into effect later.
Italy and Greece have recognised legal partnerships, but have not yet gone beyond this, due to strong conservative religious powers.
Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay have approved in the rest of the world.
Besides some of the East European countries, Balkan countries such as Serbia, Croatia, Roumania, Albania, Bulgaria, Montenegro, Moldavia, Slovakia, Macedonia, have digressed into doing away with more liberal laws in the past.
Of course religious doctrine of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christian churches have not budged much, except there is some mild hope with Pope Francis bringing in some fresh air to the Vatican.
In the Jewish tradition, Reform Judaism, the American branch of Conservative Judaism, and Reconstructionist Judaism, all have come out in formal support of same sex marriages.
Protestant Churches that support homosexual marriages are The Presbyterians, Quakers, Unitarian Universalists, United Church of Christ, which were the first to ordain openly LGBT clergy and the Evangelical Lutheran Church which leaves it up to the minister.
The American Episcopal Church, will take up the marriage issue this June. The rest of the Anglian communion is noted to be conservative world wide and therefore will probably consider any progressive move to be another riff between the two religious bodies.
With the world playing out continuous stages of bloodshed and violence for political, geographical and religious dominance, frankly the old rhetoric about who can be legally married seems to be far down the ranks of threats and issues to the well being of what humanity is facing now.
Love has no boundaries, nor can its beauty and validity be defined by gender orientation. Love between two LGBT persons is not at all different in any way from heterosexual love.
The capacity of parental love issuing from two LGBT persons is not any different from two heterosexual couples either. Remember, the capacity to be a loving nurturing parent has nothing to do with someone’s sexual orientation but everything to do with that person’s emotional and mental health!
For those of you Christians struggling with acceptance of same sex marriage based on your strict adherence to some Christian doctrines, I can only offer and share with you my own personal spiritual and religious beliefs. I have no intent to proselytize, but just explain how I feel, that I hope will be met with as much respect as I hold for your own.
As much as traditional Biblical scripture should be honoured, some parts of it should be interpreted within the context of the time it was written, that can not be applied to modern society. If that were not the case, then slavery for example, would be sanctified today!
As a practicing Catholic, I believe the Holy Spirit to be as living and breathing today as in the past when the scriptures were written. Father Jean Pierre de Caussade who was a Jesuit priest, wrote in 1731, some of the most beautiful and prolific writings according the power of the Holy Spirit to be freshly interpreted and heard today.
He was born and raised in Cahor, France and I believe certainly he had been graced with the blessings and love of Notre Dame de Rocamadour, nearby. He felt we are all called by the Holy Spirit, who invades willing hearts to be the instruments of God’s Spirit and to bring the message of love freshly to the world. I, along with Father Caussade, as he so elegantly wrote, have no doubt that the Spirit of Divine Love is writing new scriptures into the hearts of others, who as Jesus said have the eyes to see and the ears to hear.
God is the essence of universal Divine Love, and Holy Spirit as part of the trinitarian Godhead is always weaving and expanding our human hearts to have the capacity to love one another as Jesus Christ taught.
We, who want to reflect the fullness of Christ’s light and love onto others, must sanctify each person’s loving kind heart, regardless of their sexual orientation and allow them to share in the sacred bond of marriage.
Well, if we are expressing our opinions about all of this . . . . I think that sexual dysfunctions in sexual identities and or “abnormalities” (different from the “norm”) are, for the most part, when something goes amiss in the development of the fetus. I have heard it claimed these “problems” occur in approximately one out of ten individuals. In this “enlightened” period of humanity, it seems to be appropriate to recognize this biological-sexual issue . . . . some people are just born “different from the ‘norm’:; and they should have the right to live their lives as much as anyone. However, I think that a social or societal distinction should be made, socially, between marriage between a man and a woman; and same sex couples. (You can call me bigoted if you like.) I think that same sex couples should have the same rights as men and women; what is wrong with calling a same sex”marriage” to be a “civil union”. I think that would satisfy MOST people.in regard to this issue.
I’ve heard claims by psychologists, psychiatrists, etc. who claimed that almost ALL people have some type of latent homosexuality. I have to admit that I have NEVER had ONE single “impulse” or attraction for another man; so I guess homosexuality is a rather truly strange and unfathomable concept for me . . . . Ha! (Well, two women is more “understandable . .. .Ha!)
I’ve known a few homosexuals . . . relatives and people in genera; and I’ve had a few discussions with some of them . . . it is what it is. I think that we would all like to see everyone “be normal”; We’ve gone from an era in our youth when homosexuals were hassled, ostracized, and virtually terrorized by society, including the police, to a point of realization of the biological and societal realities of homosexual.
Societal changes such as this don’t come easily; but little by little society adjusts to it all. I just think that society might be more comfortable, for the current times, to have a social differentiation between marriage between a man and a woman and a same sex couple. . . . . sorta like having a “Mr.” or “”Mrs./Miss./Ms; That is just descriptive of a social status of sorts. Is there any thing “wrong” about differentiation between social aspects of a persons life?
And to complicate the situation even more bi-sexuality seems to be becoming a larger issue, esp. amongst women, esp. young women. We seem to be entering a new era of sexuality . . . gosh, how does a young guy trust his girl friend with her girl friends, Ha! It is all a little difficult for totally heterosexual people to comprehend and “appreciate” it is a reality of life that needs to be accepted. (Gosh, what are the LGBT groups going to demonstrate against now that they have the rights of same sex marriage (and divorce and property settlements, etc.).
So, now that everyone is “equal”, what is left for “causes” and demonstrations? Transgender operations are “accepted” by most Americans, probably. Heck, I even think that prostitution should be legalized; I would still keep pimping, and white slavery to be criminal acts in order to protect the women Why should, and by what basis does society “criminalize” any type of sex between “consenting adults”.
Meanwhile the terrorist and ultra conservative Muslims rape women or sell them as “wives”, etc., and most of the world lives back in the dark ages. None of this is going to be resolved in my life time . . . Ha!
.
I would add to this that I do NOT agree with the decision of the SCOTUS. While I somewhat agree that things should be somewhat “equalized” as far as social “acceptance” of people’s sexuality IN THEIR PRIVATE LIVES, I think that the decision by the SCOTUS was inappropriate from the powers and authority granted by the Constitution; it was an inappropriate act by the SCOTUS; it would be appropriate , and constitutional for the decision to be resolved by Congress. Of course, it would have taken Congress “forever” to do what the SCOTUS did; but technically, it was wrong for the SCOTUS to do what they did . . . . . . the same applies to the issue of corporation having the same rights as real, live humans, the ObamaCre issue, and a few other issues. I believe in a woman’s rights to abortion is that is what she chooses. Too many in society seem to be adhering to the antiquated puritanical perspectives and values.
Even as a 101% straight guy, at my age, I ‘ve become of the opinion that people should be entitled to their private lives, and that gays/homosexuals should be entitled to civil unions that convey the same rights as “marriage”. It is just the natural “evolution” of society and our understanding of human sexuality.
In the past I didn’t approve of missed-marriages , esp. with Blacks; However, in my life time, it is becoming much more frequent and almost common. Politically and socially, I consider myself to b some what of a moderately liberal CONSERVATIVE; but things change with time. .
I really do NOT consider myself to be a “liberal”; just a moderately liberal CONSERVATIVE. So now that homosexuals have “equal rights’ I do NOT care to see gaudy, risque demonstrations in public . . . . gosh, what are they going to do now that they have “equal rights” to heterosexual married couples??? .
I’ve read and heard some discussions about how the young women, having been influenced by pornography and other media, are being warped by a confusion of their sexuality. These girls/women often do not have the life experiences , maturity, or psychological development to deal with these issues. That purportedly leads to a sexual confusion amongst such girls/young women. Isn’t it rather antiquated for society, from a legislative position, for society passing laws in regard to sexual “preferences” of individuals? Yeah, a few “normal people” may be drawn into so sex homosexual/lesbian; but that is their choice. Personally, I think that most gays/lesbian are just born that way. They might probably prefer to be straight; but that just isn’t the hand that nature dealt to them. That is just a reality of life; biologically things just go amiss or askew occasionally. That certainly is NOT the fault of the individual. It is time that society made accommodations(What does it really matter to society what these pope do in their private lives?)
If a tenth of our population has p”problems” with their sexual identities, why shroud that be a big matter for society to become concerned with from a legal aspect?
Personally, I found it to be a little amazing that while SCOTUS could issue a majority vote for “gay marriage” and other controversial things (like ObamacCare), they hsve not issued a decision t grant “equal pay for woe doig equal work”.
Personally, forget all of the romantic crap (which I cannot identify with . . . . . Ha People have heir personal lives and their legal rights. I just think that same-sex unions should be labeled as “civil unions; it is a societal distinction. Live and let live, as long as it is in the privacy o one’ home.
LOL . . . . I have to admit it is more difficult for me to imagine too image a relationship between two men versus two women . . . . perhaps that is a “curse” to being “normal: . . . . . ha1 A key point being that how can one condemn a person for what “nature wrought” on the development of them as ft uses? Frankly, i am just glad that I i don’t hove any problems with any of that it must be hell to live with that kind of “problems?, huh>
I think that most people would prefer to be “normal”; but that just ins’ t how that nature works out. .
Yeah, love is grand; but t doesn’t come out the way that it is supposed to work out. Meanwhile Muslims are killing each other because of their different sects . . . . . LOL .. . . . i think that i may have become more cynical about people in general.
People who are in same-sex relationships is not “NORMAL”; but it is a reality of life; and there is no real basis for ostracizing the same-sex couples. . . . with the passage of the legislation and the SCOTUS decision a bout “equality” them about what “nature wrought”.
Thank you David for your comment and respectful opinion. Research continues into the “origins” of homosexuality, if there is just one, mostly involving the over exposure of male hormones called androgenes: testosterone, dihydrotestosterone, and androstenedione prenatally.
Certainly, we know that the exposure of these androgens or the lack of, plays a key role in the development of male genitalia, of in the absence of, female genitalia. Since brain sexual differentiation developpes afterwards, there in not any “conclusive evidence” that excessive exposure to androgens may contribute to homosexual orientation. There is a correlation of over androgenization in genetic females as causing ambiguous genitalia, predominately an enlarged clitoris.
Yes, studies have noted an small correlation of gay men having more older brothers, implicating again over exposure to androgens due to an maternal immune response due to repeated intrauterine androgen exposure from previous male fetuses.
It was Freud who said that he believed that most of us have latent homosexuality, which has been debunked long ago in mainstream psychological circles. Homosexuality is never latent because it is always a conscious recognition in homosexuals.
Gender identification disorder is another ballgame and one that I find extremely fascinating.
Human sexuality and gender identification may be hot in terms of research potential, but as a therapist, I am more concerned with helping patients accept the uniqueness of whoever they are and live their lives to the fullness that they deserve!
Gender identification is different from sexual orientation!
People who have physical/biological and psychological developments that are different from “the norm” have enough “problems and challenges” in their lives; Anything between consenting adults in their private lives should not be attempted to be controlled or criminalized by society. As I mentioned, personally, I prefer the term of “civil union”, rather than the term “marriage” for same sex couples.
It appears to me that the media . . . movies, TV, (even broad cast TV), the internet, and publications . . . overly pushing homosexuality provides a negative influence that may be rather confusing to many young children and teens. It is okay for adults; but kids just don’t have the maturity and psychological development to not be confused by a lot of what they see. But the Pandora’s Box has been opened; and society will never be the same as it was in the past. I don’t think that celebrities such as Miley Cyrus should be held up as role models for young kids and teens; that just adds to the sexual perception “problems” of young people. But nothing is going to stop “marketing’s use of sex to sell things.
Sex change operations have been developed to the point where it is said that it is extremely difficult for GYN doctors to discern artificially created female genitalia (I haven’t heard the same thing about artificially created male genitalia though). I’ve heard that Bruce Jenner wasn’t going to have his genitalia “changed”; so he is sort of half-in and half-out of his situation.
I think that society should be “accommodating” enough to allow these people to lead their private lives; but as usual, everything gets overdone to an exaggerated point. Meanwhile the radical Muslim/Islam “solution, and of many other countries is jailing, stoning or beheading those who deviate from “the norm”; and that isn’t likely to change during the next half century or so. “Love” is great and grand; but societies have always sought to regulate anything out of “the norm” by criminalizing such acts. The world is always changing; but that takes a long time. Heck, after a half century of “integration” a lot of racial issues persist. The same will be true, and even worse, for the sexual aspects of life.
It seems that people “live within the context of their generation”in regard to music, social “acceptabilities”, sexuality, etc., that is so inbred in them. The older generations tend to not change very much in their attitudes; so, it takes their dying and being replaced by the younger generations who are more open to changes. Meanwhile it appears that a lot of the world is, in essence, ‘regressing” towards something like the radicalizations of the middle Ages; and the world is becoming more polarized socially and economically (esp. with the demise of the middle class, etc.)
When I took a couple of business law courses in college, Louisiana was the ONLY state in the U.S. whose laws were based upon the French Napoleonic Codes . . . women and children were STILL considered to be “chattel property” (sic. “movable property”) and I think that law was only changed a couple of decades ago. So a lot has changed in the life time of our generation; not so for the majority of the world though. It does concern me at times to wonder about what type of society our grandchildren will live in.
Recently there has been a lot of comments and projections about AI – Artificial intelligence, which some say may become a “threat” to society in a half century or so. Will people become less educated and “productive” in the distant future ;and will society “regress” somewhat?
So, for the moment, society has become more accommodating to those outside of “the norm”; but with the influence of the radical Muslims throughout the world, might that change in the future. France and Europe already have a tremendous number of Muslims in their countries. What will happen in a couple of generations when their numbers multiply so quickly? Will things regress somewhat due to their influence on society?
As usual I have strayed a little beyond the focus of your original comment . . . but one thing leads to another, huh? All we can do is to live within our generation’s time.
It appears that one of the the “next steps” about “freedom in love” is the polygamists; with the success of the same sex marriage ruling by the SCOTUS, some of the polygamists are now working to file appeals on previous court cases that they lost in the past. Is that one of the next steps in “social developments”? (Heck, it was always more than enough for me to try to handle ONE wife . . . Ha!) Anyway, that is a new “cause” for some. So, can society limit the number of spouses that a man or a woman has? And is there anything legally wrong with those in such relationships being prohibited from having affairs outside of those relationships?
I think that society is mostly concerned with having stable environments for children to be reared in; and the stability of society. If a polygamist dies are ALL of their spouses and children to be paid the full amount for things like Social Security survivor’s benefits? How might these polygamist marriages and families be in any way subsidized financially and via social services by society? (Is it in anyway similar to poor families having more children for welfare and other benefits? (Not that that is rational.)
It becomes a question as to where does society draw the line of what is “acceptable” for the best interests of society. Do polygamists have less “rights” than gays, homosexuals, transgenders, etc?
Twenty years ago same sex marriage being legalized and accepted was probably inconceivable to most Americans; now it is a matter of law per the SCOTUS decision. Will polygamy be legalized in another twenty years or less? (Isn’t it rather strange that for many of the radical Muslims, polygamy has ALWAYS been legal and accepted in their society . . . yet they stone to death or behead anyone for adultery or fornication? . . . of course it doesn’t count if the other person is a non-believer “infidel”, except in the case of women,; and then EVERYTHING COUNTS.
Humanity is simply irrational and culturally biased when it comes to sexuality and human relationships. So, where is the basis to “criminalize prostitution, sex amongst consenting adults? The only criminal factors involved in prostitution is pimps and others who exploit and abuse women. Otherwise, why shouldn’t women have the right to do as they choose to do? If a “John” abuses them, then they can file a police complaint. Human sexuality and relationships are just too complex to regulate by law.
I don’t know about how it is now in Louisiana; but years ago, basically the only basis for divorce was adultery which forced many people to stay in unhappy marriages (putting it lightly). Florida has “no-fault” divorce laws; all that is required is for one spouse to petition for a divorce, no grounds, other than irreconcilable differences” need to be given; and Florida is a “community property” state, where the assets are split 50/50. “Common law” marriages are not recognized. So, a woman who doesn’t bother with marriage when living with a guy and having children by him, is KNOWINGLY taking a big financial risks; she doesn’t have an “equal right to marital assets in the event of breaking up with her “live-in”. But there are a lot of women who do that in south Florida. (They can get child support though; but that can be an expensive legal costs..
Yeah, “love is grand”; but it sure has lot of rather complex facets to it all . . . the emotional and then the practical aspects of it all, huh? Heck, I’ve always found my rather “normal life” and marriage to be challenging enough for me. “Normal” can be quite nice and satisfying in comparison to the complexities of other peoples’ lives. However, “normal people” can choose to complicate and screw up their lives any time that they desire to do so. It is a free choice that everyone has a right to make. Laws are not going to change human sexuality and relationships though.
I don’t think that the polygamists have a chance of winning any court decisions; but then a few decades ago, the vast majority of people didn’t think that there was any chance of same sex marriages being legalized.
Thank you David for letting me know about the polygamists wanting legal rights in the states. I can not see any correlation though, (plurality) with the same sex ruling. You bring up many interesting questions regarding cultural morays derived from certain religious factions having influenced marital legality laws that are unacceptable to other countries(polygamy and divorce) in some Middle Eastern countries.
What we see as normal versus abnormal has a lot to do with our cultural upbringing and instilled intrafamilial values/beliefs from our parents. Diversity can be wonderful, yet certainly challenging when laws are created for the whole populus, especially for strongly opinionated dissidents.
Marital unions of same sex people will offer the same challenges that are inherent in any hetero relationships. I suspect divorce lawyers are happy over the increased pool of potential clients!