Gay Marriage
In the religious sense, yes, marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. Why are we debating this issue in Congress? I believe that religion and government should be kept rigorously separate in function. I also understand that marriage, in the legal sense, is a binding between two people that gives them legal responsibility over the other and among other things, certain tax benefits. These two definitions need to stop being confused.
People say that legalizing gay marriage will promote the homosexual way of life. Suck more people into it.
You do NOT become homosexual by concious choice. You do NOT become heterosexual by concious choice. Many things drive what we find erotic or fufilling, from the romance novels girls read, to Playboy, to the infinite unknowns. The thing is, if you are attracted to the same sex and absolutely not at all to the opposite sex, we can not change that. Say you find Brad Pitt the hottest guy in the world but they tell you you are not to love and marry that type of guy, but must go and seek out the Chris Farleys of the world and those are your options if you want to get married. I'm sure if I was a lesbian and told I could not marry a woman and if I ever did want that legal security and honor of being a bride I'd have to turn to men I'd be incredibly unhappy. Am I, due to the attractions I can not control, doomed to a life alone? Am I unworthy? Am I less than you? I don't think being homosexual should mean any of that. And, just because gay marriage is legalized it doesn't mean I'm going to suddenly think HEY! That's an awesome idea. Let's get gay! It's absurd to think that. You don't decide what you are attracted to. I can no more influence you to be gay or straight then I can tell you that latex and whips are the way to go. Our reproduction rate is not going to suddenly plummet as everyone decides they'd rather not marry the opposite sex and adopt babies. Absolutely ridiculous.
I don't really understand the moral underminings of it either. Aren't some of the most redeeming qualities in a relationship fidelity, honesty, love, and trust? Doesn't marriage promote that?
Look, I understand if a church does not want to accept same sex marriage. That's fine, don't condone it, don't tell your children its fine with you, don't allow it in your church. Do not impose your belief system on this country. Even if you are right, even if we are all doomed if gay people get married, this is a country that is founded on the belief that persecution is something to get away from and that individuality is valued. If you believe you have the right to tell someone who they can love you do not respect their individuality. Some say "ok, be gay, just don't get married." So you're saying its ok if they want to commit to each other forever more, take care of each other, have a home together, but if one partner gets deathly ill and needs her lover to make vital decisions she has no legal right to?
Please understand. Yes marriage may have started out as a purely religous ceremony, but it is not the case any more. Marriage has very grave legal implications now that are necessary to ensure that one person may take care of another with in the limits of our legal system. Fine, ostracize them from your church, but do not ostracize them from society.
Inspired by reading VA is going to be voting on same sex marriage come November.
Comments
As someone who has actually been 'exorcised', and scared into getting baptized at 13, and completely traumatized by a religious uncle I simply have to say that the church is full of shit, and should be taxed out of their 300,000 dollar sculptures(visit TN, I shit you not). I personally dont like hearing about gay sex, but whatever they do is their buisness, and in all fairness... guys constantly bug their women for anal sex, so you cant say that's the problem. As for lesbians, all straight dudes love them, and have no room to talk. I personally think it's more an issue of money than anything.
The whole gay conversion thing is just idiotic, as if by some form of magic I'm suddenly gonna want to bend some hairy dude over the sink... right.
Just let them do it, and stop letting mentally challenged righteous crusader presidents start wars; cash saved.
While I agree with many of the things you say, I cannot agree with them in totality. I certainly do not agree with Kirk (above) at all.
First, to contradict Kirk (above), this conversation is not idiotic. You can strip religion out of this completely, and it is still NOT idiotic for society to set and impose laws and norms.
Marriage is perhaps the very bedrock issue of our society, because from it comes the first impressions of how a person should live in that society. For example, a society may allow parents to spank children, but it cannot allow them to abuse children. It steps in - not as a religious principal but a legal one. Society does not allow a wage-earning spouse to just abandon the family. Again, this is does not need to be a religious principal.
Sexuality is very personal in one sense but also very social in another. The law may allow consenting adults to do whatever they want in private, but it should not allow that same act to be performed in a public place. It is not a religious issue. It is just not good for the discipline of a country for individuals not to control their lust, anger, shouting, etc. in public.
The last part of this three-term equation is the Public School system. This is not a religious body and should not teach a particular religion. (I will argue here that authority in general is a key premise to even secular relationships, and that the school should teach that the authority does not stop at a teacher, school board or President. They should openly teach that there is some "higher moral principle" that all humans struggle to relate to and abide by...) Still, school does, like the family (marriage...) teach social norms and interpersonal-relationships.
Now - you have to take all these together to see that it is absolutely critical for society to have a normative and professed standard of behavior for many issues - like paying taxes, not abusing children, and not having sex in public. One of these is that the NORMATIVE behavior in our society is heterosexual relationships in the confines of marriage.
Having gay friends or family you love and respect is not the issue. I have several in my life. Pressing for religious standards / litmus tests is also not good. That is not my point at all. Harassment of adults practicing a consensual lifestyle is also not my point. I am very much for personal freedoms for adults - within the bounds of standards that will not disrupt anybody else's freedom. Harassing children - or "exorcising" them - is never appropriate.
My main desire is all children to get the clear message from ALL inputs that society promotes heterosexuality, heterosexual unions. and marital stability at the normative behavior. For that reason, I feel it is very important that the country NOT allow gay marriage or gay issues purported in any official doctrine as normal. I also hope all children are still allowed to express their opinions and be accepted for who they think they are and what the think is important.
Adults can say are gay or even just decide to have gay sex. (I am still not convinced some are just "born that way." Even your argument was one of choice. I know I sure don't want sex with Janet Reno...) I really don't care nor think society should care - as long as it is done privately and not part of some semi-official government-sanctioned setting. I don't care if folks want to practice bondage or whatever they want sexually - as an adult and in privacy. It is just that none of this should be part of some official government-sanctioned setting - like mariage!
Now, if you'll allow me to address another commenter:
Torch, your diatribe is so full of holes, it's frightening. You simply cannot claim rules against beating children and having sex in public are the same normative constructs as rules against gay marriage. It's textbook 'apples and oranges'.
The difference is that beatings, public sex, deadbeat parents, and profanity all do harm to a society. By way of contrast, allowing same-sex couples the same rights of union as opposite-sex couples does no harm to a society. It doesn't promote rampant fornication. It doesn't influence otherwise straight people to become gay. It doesn't proliferate the spreading of AIDS. If anything, it adds some modicum of fidelity and class to an otherwise vastly debauched and disrespected tradition (what's the current US divorce rate again?).
As to your being unconvinced that heterosexuality is a naturally occurring phenominon, perhaps you just need to do more reading. Animals ranging from the African Elephant to the Spinner Dolphin to the Speckled Rattlesnake to the common House Fly have exhibited homosexual activity in the wild. Here's a quick list for your perusal.
Thanks Auds... I wish all straight people would be so enlightened. Here is a post you may be interested in:
ChristopherStreetVOX .
I try to keep my politics off my VOX, yet this last week I did post a gay related news story; because the world should never forget Michael J Sandy a gay man that was the victim of a brutal hate crime. The story seems to have got lost with all the election and war news coverage.
Thanks again for your show of support. It is appreciated and does make a difference.
Well said, Auds.
Torch: The 'normalcy' you speak of is a biased concept created by people, not nature. It's based around the stereotype of a 'conventional family unit', you know.. the usual - 2 kids, maybe 3. Pet dog. Loving (not so applicable today) couple - 'till death do them part'. It is with that same stereotype that women were oppressed & chained to the kitchen.
Also if granting equal rights to gay couples will lead to children having distorted views of relationships and fuck them up big-time growing up, then wouldn't banning gay unions instill in their very very very impressionable minds (which turn gay in the blink of an eye) that being gay is just wrong (we can allude this to a parent taking candy away from his or her child - it's a punishment), leading to a more homophobic society.
Who are we to question the sanctity of a gay marriage, when divorce rates for heterosexual unions are sky-rocketing, and reading about another celebrity marriage is de rigeur. If anything, homosexuals will view marriage with less frivolity, because they worked so hard just to get this fundamental right.
Normative behavior? Standards of normative behavior are things like "Don't kill people" or "Public masturbation is inappropriate." Whenever we establish something as a "normative" behavior we automatically classify anything other than that as deviant. This kind of Manichean thought is dismissive at best but more often simply damning. I suppose you'd say that supplying children with standard gender roles is the government's job as well? Little Tommy plays with barbies and likes to wear girl clothes, well that's not "normal" and we should correct that with examples of normative gender behavior. Your logic borders on the absurd.
Children should be taught that yes, things like abuse and public sex are wrong and inappropriate, but that loving relationships can exist between all types of people of all sexes, that's just common sense. If two male Penguins can raise a happy baby, why can't two male humans? If we limit normative behavior to strictly heterosexual relationships, then we're telling children that any homosexual, bisexual, or transgender (I'm assuming that you also think that alternative gender identities are also not normative-behavior as well) feelings they may have are shameful and can cause them intense psychological problems.
Hi Auds! :)
Do not impose your belief system on this country.
Thank you for this, Auds. I found you through Kirk's blog and I'm so glad I read this. We can all sit around and argue the 'right' and 'wrong' of homosexuality and gay marriage (but just for the record, I'm with you and Kirk) but here's something that no one has pointed out yet in the comments:. It's a red herring. A way to attract attention AWAY from the real issues and garner votes.If we examine which polis are for it and which are against, it's 100 percent what the majority of their focus group would want them to think about the issue. They have no real opinion on this issue, or if they do,they keep it to themselves and say what their voters want them to say. If Mitt Romney learned that the gay community was the ONLY group who was thinking about voting for him, don't you think he'd become an advocate for gay marriage in a heartbeat? Case in point - a minister in a rightwing Colorado church has to lie about his homosexuality, or else he couldn't be a minister at a right wing Colorado church. Does his sex preference change his beliefs in a certain God or the Republican Party? It really shouldn't. But to certain voters, things come as a "package." Because Condoleezea is black and female, she's triply despised by Democrats as a warmongering liar. She is a warmongering liar, but she shouldn't get extra demerits because we all have classed her in another two categories. Bottom line: we expect certain "types" of people to think only a certain way and if they want to be part of a group, they can never say, "I agree with this bit that this group thinks, but not this other bit." And they should be able to say that. But, they can't or they are kicked out of their "group" That's why politicians will never say the truth of what they feel. That's why I never want to be part of any particular group, because people will then start assigning me values and opinions that I may or may not have or think. If we keep doing this, we'll keep getting the politicians we have and nothing will change. Just a thought.
And on the original topic of gay marriage, you are right. It’s probably not the number-one issue that Americans should be thinking about. I do not really have a firm opinion on homosexuality myself. I know gay men and women on both sides of the argument—that one is born with same-sex attraction, or that one consciously makes that choice. Granted, I know fewer in the latter group, but they are there and I respect that in their case, that is exactly what had happened. It’s a less popular view in this day and age, but we do need to recognize it.
Regardless of why a person is homosexual, I agree with Auds on the idea that gay marriage does not promote homosexuality. The ability for a gay couple to marry should not influence the proportions of straight to gay people in any community. It may allow some to acknowledge their feelings more.
Among those that believe they chose to be gay, from what I understand, they did so because of some perception of how they saw themselves. It had nothing to do with whether the option of marriage was available to them or not. Those who believe they are born gay—well, it’s pretty obvious that the gay marriage question won’t affect them.
You're right in everything you say. I do know there are people who choose to be gay, too,. Perhaps they are just more sexually open people with fewer hang-ups and better imaginations...who knows? I just have never understood why this issue stirs so many people up to the extent it does. Something about same-sex marriage terrifies some people and those people all seem to have other similiar restrictive values What does that signify? I'm more interested in examining that aspect and its effect on society and politics as a whole, rather than whether same sex couples sould be "allowed" to get married. The very idea that they need my permission or that anyone else thinks they should be able to stop them appalls me.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident. that all men are created equal,that they are endowed with certain unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Neatly sums it up. A marriage between 'Sam and Mark' down the street or 'Sally and Jane' at work, does not affect or alienate my happiness in any way. If you and I think we should be able to legally stop them, that alienates their happiness, though. Simple, really.
This ties in neatly to your comment on why certain people have restrictive values and I love your last paragraph. ‘Do unto others,’ essentially, and I agree.
Auds, I almost didnt wrte anything here as i realized is an old post, but after seeing Patricia's I thought the least I could do was say Hi....
I too got here through Kirk [who is my absolute idol :)]
Brilliant post. The only one thing I would comment on is on :
"Our reproduction rate is not going to suddenly plummet as everyone decides they'd rather not marry the opposite sex and adopt babies. Absolutely ridiculous."
As someone who has been deep into the lesbian scene of a few countries, including the UK's, I can tell you as a matter of fact the reproduction rate would not plummet.
Lesbians these days do not want to adopt (which is a shame, with the amount of children who are already born and need a loving family...) These days, with the availiability of sperm donors and IBF, they keep reproducing.
I m not gonna go into my reluctancy to accept the whole thing, because it goes into another scale all together.
Brilliant post.
Thanks.