Awhile back I watched an Oprah Winfrey show which featured Melissa Etheridge and Dolly Parton as guests. Melissa Etheridge asked Dolly Parton whether or not she believed homosexuals should be allowed to marry. Dolly Parton replied, "Hell, Yes! Equal rights! Why shouldn't you all have to suffer like the rest of us?"
The silly season is upon us, otherwise known as elections. Gay marriage seems to once again to reign as the supreme issue de jour. Petitions have been signed. Voters will be asked to define, constitutionally, what exactly constitutes a marriage. Courts are weighing in on the matter en masse.
To be honest, I am not completely comfortable with gay marriage. However, I can't honestly think of a logical reason to justify preventing it. It is traditional to allow only one man and one woman to marry. So what? The most heinous of society's ills were traditional at one point or another. Slavery, for instance. At one point in this country it was traditional to burn women at the stake if society thought they were witches. Frankly, a lot of traditions annoy the hell out of me. My significant other's family has a "tradition" of letting the women slave away in the kitchen on huge meals during holidays while the menfolk watch football. After the men gorge themselves, they return to worship the television while the women wash the dishes. Sucky tradition. I asked my significant other why his name was printed first on everything. From checks to address labels to junk mail, the guy's name always seems to come first. My significant other justified it by shrugging and saying, "It's tradition babe." Huh. I thought "ladies first" and alphabetical order were also traditional, but the tradition of sexism tends to take priority over both of the aforementioned. Tradition alone as a justification to ban gay marriage doesn't wash.
How about the breakdown of society? How do you figure? Allowing two consenting adults to marry is going to somehow going to threaten civilization? What, two men get married and suddenly people will want marriage to include three or more people or even pets? Not likely. Marriage represents a lifetime commitment to another person. Folks who are into three or more ways don't strike me as the committed type.
It isn't natural. It isn't? Who says? Anyone who has watched rabbits, deer or dogs have likely witnessed homosexuality in species other than humans. I have heard some argue that if homosexuality were, in fact, "natural" or alright with the All Mighty, homosexual intercourse would result in conception. Like there is a shortage of people? Our species is on the verge of extinction is it? If humans are threatened it is because there are too many of us depleting resources. Homosexuality has been with us since ancient times. Perhaps it is nature's or God's way of
preventing over population. Don't misunderstand me. I think gays can make good parents. There are plenty of kids out there who have been neglected and abused by heterosexual parents.
With a divorce rate of over fifty percent, it would seem that heterosexuals are the biggest threat to the institution of marriage. It would seem that most heterosexuals have difficulty maintaining and staying committed to a member of the opposite sex.
The full truth is that there is a certain
type of gay that I find revolting. It isn't homosexuality in and of itself. Two women or two men in a committed relationship don't threaten or disgust me. However, I have been to Castro Street in San Francisco, seen a gay parade or two in Chicago, and seen a television series or two which all seem to promote a lifestyle that is absolutely perverted.
Think of the "Jack" character on NBC's
Will and Grace. Heterosexual or homosexual, if your sexual desires overshadow absolutely everything in your life, you've got problems. That is, if
ALL you are is a sexual being, regardless of sexual preference, well, you would fall into my "icky" category as a person. Over sexual beings exist in both worlds. Think of the guy at the bar with his shirt unbuttoned to his navel, the sleaze who has wondering eyes and hands, desperately trying to score with anything female. Icky. I wouldn't want the Jack character or the barfly to be my children's teacher or coaching little league. I don't want to have to rent an apartment to them. They are not normal. I don't trust the judgment of either of them. I don't hate either of them, but I do think they have made sex into something unhealthy and some personality disorder, perversion, or at a minimum- a sexually transmitted disease, likely lies in each.
On the other hand, I have no problem with the "Will" character on
Will and Grace. Will represented most of us, I think. He sought a partner to share his life, have children, and grow old with. Most of society shares the same goals. Nothing abnormal there. I'm not a prude, and I'm not saying that sex should be outlawed for those who are not married. I'm not sure I would define sexual intercourse as a "sacred act" even within a marriage. Puhleeze. Is there a married person out there that didn't pursue sex with her or his spouse as a cure for insomnia? Nonetheless, most of us more mature non-prudes, who have lived long enough to have a few regrets, can likely admit- there are few things less satisfying and ultimately more lonely than a one night stand.
It seems to me that the easiest way to try to stamp out the perverted type of homo AND hetero sexual is for society to embrace and promote marriage for both. Society has much to gain from mature adults in committed relationships. Society has much to fear from those who promote sex as just another bodily function, nothing more special than, say, blowing one's nose or going to the bathroom.
