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.
If your mind is too open, your brain will fall out. Warning: Names, identities, descriptions, and pictures have been changed and/or used to protect the innocent as well as the guilty. PollyPeoria should not be used or quoted as a source for your senior college thesis.
Monday, July 17
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive
Links
- Batten Disease Home Page
- Peoria Pundits
- Peoria Chronicle
- Peoria Story
- Peoria Illinoisan
- Merle Widmer's Peoria Watch
- Ahl Things Considered
- Eyebrows McGee Plays in Peoria
- Lollygaggin
- Scott's Blog Experience
- Chef Kevin's Culinary Rant & Raves
- Obrien's Briar Patch
- Market 117
- Vonster
- Pasghetti Place
- Dying In Haiti
- A Bird In The Hand
39 comments:
"From checks to address labels to junk mail, the guy's name always seems to come first."
HA! They need to go read Emily Post!
Old Emmie says when a man and woman have different last names, or their names are listed separately (even if the name is the same), the woman always goes first!
Not that I think we've ever gotten a properly-addressed wedding invitation in this fashion. :D
Well written Polly! I agree.
Excellent. You said it all.
CJ --
Just 'coz some group would love to promote polyamory doesn't mean it will happen. No one has drawn a direct link between gays "marrying" and these other, slippery slope arguments.
In fact, there is no rational argument for disallowing at least gay unions. There are plenty of rational arguments against polyamory, arguments that have serious public policy issues.
I did read the piece, CJ, but don't buy his argument. For those that don't wish to read it, here is the summary: Since gay marriage proponents argue that gender is irrelevant in marriage (hence man-married-to-man), so too must the number 2 be irrelevant. Of course, you need to buy his basic presence to believe the rest of his argument. I would counter by suggesting you read William Saletan's excellent counterpoint at http://www.slate.com/id/2138482/.
But I'm more interested in your other challenge: What are the rational reasons to outlaw polyamorous marriage and not gay marriage. Let me say that my rationale is purely from a policy standpoint, and I could care less if x screws x and y (or any combination thereof). But from a policy standpoint, there are huge ramifications for legal marriage contracts between >2 people. First of all, at its base, marriage is a legal basis for sharing property. In a union of two, the breakup of that union is fairly straightforward. When it comes to the custody of children or division of property or alimony or any of those things, it would be a public policy nightmare to build a system where Steve and Adam and Eve are all "married" but then Adam and Eve get divorced from Steve. I'm not saying our current system is easy or even fair, but you have to admit that it is less complex than polyamorous marriages would be. Are rational arguments good enough to prevent the "next logical step"? I have no idea, but I'd be willing to make the argument.
The fact is that few want to be honest about the fact that they wish to outlaw gay marriage because it offends their personal morality. I bet you cannot find one rational argument that doesn't, at some point, boil down to the notion that "it just ain't right." If bloggers were around 50 years ago, what do you think the arguments would have been about the rights of blacks to marry whites. I know, I know, race is different. But what about a law that might prevent Catholics from marrying Jews (not sure that ever existed) -- those are both choices. In fact, you can find no firm ground on which to base your opposition, other than to use the distraction of polyamory.
By the way, I bet you during a time not so long ago, someone made the following argument: "As soon as we let blacks marry whites, next thing you know, men will want to marry men." I am not trying to paint anti-gay marriage folks as bigots, just describing how these slippery slope arguments ALWAYS work.
Under your logic, we could pass a law banning inter-religious marriages, right?
I'll try to write a better response to your post later. But you still haven't given a good reason not to legalize gay marriage other than it might then lead to polyamorous marriages.
Thanks, Vonster. Excellent point there. If we allow gays to marry they might get divorced. Over fifty percent of heterosexual unions served as role models, I guess.
C.J.,
You really don't comprehend the difference between a partnership of two or twenty? Two in a marriage makes sense. More than two would be inherently instable. If three men were in a marriage with one woman who would the kids call "Dad?" Even with DNA technology, more than two in a marriage would result in confusion and heartache for offspring.
However C.J., I can understand where you are coming from. I think homeschooling should be outlawed because of wiccans and cult types being allowed to educate their young as they see fit.
Well put, Polly, but I don't think you should be hanging your argument on "who will they call Dad." Not really supporting the cause of gay marriage with that one. As for Vonster, what can I say. Maybe Rush Limbaugh shouldn't be allowed to marry either -- isn't he on #4?
But CJ does bring up some interesting points. Can the judicial system divide by more than two? Yes. But I was saying that there would be serious public policy impacts of allowing polyamorous relationships. Child custody would be the worst, but just think of the impact on our tax system (number of dependents, married-filing-jointly). There is a BIG difference between a legal union of 2 and a legal union of more than two.
Your better question is about gay marriage as a civil right. But you mischaracterize the question. The question is not whether GAY marriage is a civil right but whether MARRIAGE is a civil right. If marriage is not a civil right, then we are free to pass all sorts of laws preventing x class from marrying y class (racial, religions, political, etc.). Marriage can be legally defined as a legal union between any 2 persons without fear of the premise of 2 being violated. But when you begin to offer certain legal benefits only to certain pairings of two and not all pairings of two, you are violating those civil rights. (Exceptions made for marriages of the underaged.)
In fact, I still have not heard one non-morality-based argument against gay marriage. But I'll restate a position I've taken before (not original): Leave marriages to the churches and have the government grant legal unions to any two people who wish that sort of commitment.
I hesitate to call things "civil rights," but I do not hesitate say that government MUST (under the equal protection clause) treat people equally. Marriage (or civil unions) are a legal construct for sharing certain benefits. Denying some groups of two while not others is most likely unconstitutional (and, in my opinion, wrong). I see no equivication in stating that the gender mix is arbitrary but the number of units in the marriage is not. You can make lots of arguments (legal, practical, policy, etc.) for the need for marriages of two; you can only make moral arguments about gay marriage. On your own blog, CJ, you as much as admitted that you could find no practical reason to deny homosexuals the right to marry.
But here is my challenge to you: If marriage isn't a civil right (or, more clearly, the government does not need to treat all groups of two equally), what would stop a neandrathal government from preventing blacks from marrying whites. I only use my slippery slope argument to counter your (entire) platform that we can't allow gay marriage because that might lead to polyamorous marriages.
By the way, your contention that same gender relationships are inherently more unstable is fairly ignorant, and I'd love to see some proof. One could argue that the de-legitimazation of homosexuality by denying people the right to marry causes the instability you seem to point to.
C.J.
Because of immigration, the United States does not need procreation to survive. For other countries with a low birth rate and little immigration, procreation would be a valid arugement against gay marriage.
Sibling wishing to marry simply because they are consenting adults doesn't fly. The State does have a right and interest in preventing such marriages due to the risk of birth defects in their off spring. Check out the royal family. However, New York State- for one- allows first cousins to marry, which explains a lot actually.
As far as Canada limiting free speech after legalizing gay marriage, we enjoy an entirely different Constitution and form of government. Hate/incitory speech is already illegal in the U.S.
The only person who is consistently inconsistent on this issue C.J., is you.
'Tho I admire you and your blog regardless;)
Defining marriage as between two adults regardless of sexual preference doesn't threaten the institution. Such couples thrive and dissolve regardless if the they have the State's stamp of approval.
Private institutions -such as churches- need only fear government intrusion on their hiring and benefits packages only if they are dependent upon the government for funding. There are country clubs that do not admit minorities/women and it perfectly legal, just stupid.
Homosexual marriage most certainly does further state interests. Many such union result in couples adopting or fostering children who would otherwise be left suffering in the mighty State's crappy system.
Moreover, the State having a interest alone is not a solid arguement for or against homosexual unions. The State really doesn't have much to gain or lose if I beat my dog to death (don't worry, I never would, just an extreme example in order to make a point). It is a matter of equal rights. Gays pay taxes, cause no harm simply by being gay, and are entitled to all the rights and priviliges and the marriage penalty tax hetrosexuals have/pay.
Pologamy is a hurtful practice and has been effectively argued as such, but C.J., you ignore said arguements. Pologamy is inherently instable, promotes disease, children without a primary parent, and a complicated legal headache when said unions dissolve.
Marrying animals or siblings would also be inherently harmful. Abusive where the animals are concened (dogs can't give consent), the desire to marry a sibling is quite rare I imagine and would just about always stem from some type of abuse.
It is the parent's duty to educate their children on moral issues. As far as State provided sex education, it should be based on facts. A heterosexual is someone who prefers the opposite sex. A homosexual is someone who prefers the same sex. A condom is a piece of plastic that is meant to prevent conception and the transmission of disease but is by no means 100% effective.
Ah, true. It's my blog and I can declare victory if I wanna, but I would be interested to know what you PERSONALLY find threatening as far as gay marriages are concerned. If your religion, bible, God, and State had no feeling one way or the other about it, would you still be against it? Even if we had a crystal ball and could gaurantee that no one would chose to slide down the slippery slope?
That is, if my church, God, or government had no problem with twelve year olds marrying, I would still think allowing children to marry wrong. Would you say the same about gay marriages? Why?
I'm not attacking your beliefs but rather trying to acertain if your objections are really, well, yours.
Damn, Polly got to respond before I did. And I had so many good things to say, too. Polly used them all.
But I was fascinated by two of your arguments, CJ:
1) "Public schools would have to portray gay marriage as equivalent to traditional marriage, thus teaching children values that may contradict their parents’ teaching."
Ironically, I doubt you have any problem for the fact that currently, public schools need to portray gay marriage as illegal, teaching values to MY children that contradict with my teachings. Of course, since abortion is legal, your kids might be being taught about that, too, but the fact that it offends your personal morality is hardly a reason to outlaw abortion (though I am sure you'd have others).
2) "Homosexual marriage most certainly does further state interests."
How Thomas Aquinas of you. Are you sure you aren't Catholic. Polly already made most of the good points, but by your calculation, if the state's interest in marriage is solely procreation, what would stop them from a law banning septugenarians from marrying? (I know, more slippery slope, but that's how this started.) While "state would have no reasonable way of knowing" if couples are infertile, they would know in this case.
Polly,you are one sick broad!!
CJ,
Sorry that my logic seems so tiring and frustrating to you. I've quite enjoyed the debate. While you argue that despite your religious view you still can find a rational/secular basis for outlawing gay marriage, I haven't seen you provide even one good argument. My arguments for gay marriage (or, more accurately, gay unions) is certainly based on my worldview, how could it not. But I see the bigger picture that laws have an intention of serving a public good or preventing a public bad. They should not be intended to codify some set of religious morality.
But here is possibly the strangest thing you've ever said: "Yes, homosexuality is against my religious beliefs, and yes I believe it's morally wrong. My religious beliefs and morals also happen to be the root motivation for my opposition to robbery, murder, adultery, ..." These sorts of statements always seem to portray the maker as lumping homosexuality in with crimes. (Adultery, strictly, is not a crime but does have victims.) Given your worldview and religious beliefs, and given that you seem to believe the government should bend to help legislate your brand of morality, would you like to see homosexuality outlawed? If not, I cannot quite see the difference in your arguments.
C.J.
I'm Catholic, and homosexuality certainly violates my religious beliefs. The thought of seeing two men "make out" makes me rather queasy. I'm not particularly comfortable with gay marriage. HOWEVER, unlike polygamy, sibling marriage, etc., I ADMIT THAT I HAVE NO LOGICAL REASON TO BAN GAY MARRIAGE. "Because it is just icky" just doesn't fly.
There are things I have felt were wrong before I became Catholic/Christian- murder, driving drunk, child abuse, etc. I think most atheists would probably find all the above morally objectionable. Other things I have become to believe are wrong based on religious teachings, and those teachings have also reinforced my previous beliefs as to why murder and so forth are wrong.
We live in a carefully constructed secular society, and trying to outlaw something solely because it would anger and disappoint my God is unacceptable. Unless you or God can show how such unions would harm society, (and C.J. you have not countered argued any of your original points- i.e., society doesn't need gays to procreate, etc.) as a matter of fairness, we have to allow them.
It pains me a bit too.
C.J.
Big surprise. I disagree! :)Debates like this one have often made me reconsider and change my views. Who was it who said, "A smart man changes his mind?" So, yup, I think as an intelligent being, it is plausible that you may change your mind. Of course, if you don't, you would still be an intelligent being. Polly was against gay marriage until such a debate illuminated the fact that my stance was based solely on the fact that I thought such unions were "icky." Come to think of it, I changed my mind regarding abortion as well due to some heavy debates that unearthed the fact that my former view was wrapped in emotional self interest (i.e., "It's my body") and not logic- (i.e., after conception it's no longer just my body involved, otherwise I would never want an abortion.)
Is marriage a civil right? You are correct, I neglected to counter that point. I hold that marriage is a civil right. Humans have always sought to officially bond in this way. The question is whether or not allowing gays would be the equivalent to not allowing blacks to marry or not allowing women to vote. Is it wrong to single out one group and say, "No way, not for you?" Sure. At times. Thus, kids don't have the right to vote. Such groups are singled out because granted them such rights would cause harm. We don't allow kids to vote because it is believed they don't have the maturity or education to make wise choices (yeah, maybe we should reconsider- but I digress). We can grant and deem marriage as a civil right to gay and straight couples and deny them to groups of three or more and/or siblings because it would be easy to show direct harm. Other than the slippery slope civil rights argument, there is nothing harmful about letting two gay men or women marry. There is nothing now preventing polygamists from seeking the right to marry. They can always ask. They can hire lawyers. They put a brief before the courts just like anyone else.
Procreation is not a justification, otherwise the government would not put it's stamp of approval on senior citizens marrying. If procreation were paramont, the government would test for fertility just as it tests blood for rubella and other vacinations before issuing marriage licenses.
Overpopulation is a problem across the globe, is it not? I keep hearing/reading that there are just too many of us humans depleting the earth's resources, and Mother nature is about to take aim to reduce her workload via a vicious plague or two.
The government getting out of the marriage business all together may be a valid point. When asked, "When are you two finally going to tie the knot?" I know a few couples who reply, "We are married. We are committed and devoted to each other. We just don't believe the government needs to know about it." Surely we all know someone who says, "A piece of paper doesn't make you married."
My guess is that the government is in the marriage business for pratical reasons like taxation, the ability to discern who is legally justified to what (and in the case of children- custody) when marriages dissolve, and to offer society various protections-For instance, "Uh, you might not want to marry this guy, he is already married. Or, "The blood test you took in order to get a marriage license show that you have a raging case of untreated V.D..."
C.J., I'm sorry you have found our debate tiresome. I enjoy debate, true, but I also find it facinating as to how people come to hold their views/opinions/beliefs.
Well said, Polly. I only want to clarify one point: I wasn't trying to say that marriage is a civil right. That phrase is thrown around too much. But it is a civil right to have the government treat all people equally, within reason. State-sanctioned marriage confers very real, legal benefits. When two people of the same gender are denied that government program, they are denied their equal protection.
I, too, do not find the debate tiresome. And I think they are insightful to find out exactly why some people have a particular position and what is at the root of that position.
After posting on my own blog how I think this type of debating is useless, I will (hypocrticly) stoke the fire by adding my $00.02. I fall on the side of CJ. on this debate. I feel it is foolish to think that the very nature of a homosexual relationship is equal to that of a heterosexual. And that is my problem with this whole issue. The relationships being treated as equal but they are not. This does not mean that hetero is good and homo is bad, or vice versa. It means that we need to realisticly look at the real world despite how much we want gay marriage to be accepted or how much it may make us feel "icky." Can a homosexual relationship have and surpass the amount of love of a hetero? Yes, absolutely. Can a homosexual relationship raise healthy children? Yes. Is a homosexual relationship the optimal environment in which to rasie a child? No. I say no because once a lesbian couple, for instance, wants to teach there son what it takes to be a man they will have to go out of the immediate family unit to find a suitable mentor. Like I said before, this is not better or worse, it is not equal to heterosexual marriage. The working models for each are inherently different. Will this arguement sway those who oppose my view? Probably not. But I hope it may get you to think a second time about the nature of the relationship. And is the nature of this relationship good for us as a society?
"Procreation is not a justification, otherwise the government would not put it's stamp of approval on senior citizens marrying. If procreation were paramont, the government would test for fertility just as it tests blood for rubella and other vacinations before issuing marriage licenses."
Polly, I think you need to look beyond the superficial arguement you make here. Just because two people may not be able to procreate naturaly does not mean that the working model, or design if you will, is broken. Nature favors heterosexuals from the "git" to reproduce, but something is preventing it. I know it sounds mean to say that "such n such" favors heterosexuals. But in all logic and reality, this is the case. Don't call me a 'bigot" call nature a "bigot." Just because a Porsche has a blown gasket does not make it less "Porschey." It just won't run like it used to. Thanks for indulging me.
BJ,
Always happy to indulge. What about the arguement that homosexuality is nature's way of trying prevent overpopulation? Many scientists -not just Al Gore- are warning that out planet was not designed to meet the needs of six billion plus. Less reproduction might be just what the doctor and mother nature had in mind.
No doubt nature can be a bigot. However, nature also produces quite a few homosexuals, and not just in the human species. Nature has the ability to "git 'er done" via procreation or elimination. (BTW, Has everyone stocked up on their Avian Flu supplies? I was just going to stick with my leftover Y2K preparations, but most of the canned goods expired last month...)
As far as your contention:
"Is a homosexual relationship the optimal environment in which to rasie a child? No. I say no because once a lesbian couple, for instance, wants to teach there (sic) son what it takes to be a man they will have to go out of the immediate family unit to find a suitable mentor."
Considering the amount of discord, divorce and single parenting that follows many hetrosexual marriages, I don't think your argument holds. Moreover, I would wager you learned what it meant to be a man from numerous sources and influences, as have most well rounded indviduals. Even if you are correct and a lesbian couple would need to enlist outside help to teach their son proper manliness, it is a mild handicap and easily addressed. Many, many, many hetrosexual parents face the same task after death, addiction, divorce, or the late realization that they married someone not worthy of parenthood. Sucks, but happens all the time, with frequency.
BJ, I think you are confusing the words "equal" and "same." Are homo- and hetero-couple the same -- no. Are they "equal?" I'd say yes. You say "not better or worse but not equal"; I say, if one isn't better or worse, they must be equal.
But the larger point here is that the government ought to treat these couples equally. Using your line of logic, one could easily find lots of reasons to deny marriages to all sorts of couples because they might not be "equal" to some Platonic conception of a couple.
For the record, no one has yet offered even one non-moral argument that gay marriage should be outlawed. I'd still like to hear a viable reason.
Oh! B.J., and ANOTHER THING...
Regarding nature being a bigot. It is, definitely. Nature does crummy things all the time. However, isn't one objective of The Law to level the playing field and give everyone an equal chance? For instance, isn't that why we the American Disabilities Act? Not that being gay is a disability, but then neither is being black, Jewish, female, or over the age of 50. The Law strives to provide fairness for those nature has dealt a cruel card and to protect those who have been picked on for no good reason.
Good points.
Jack says..
"I say, if one isn't better or worse, they must be equal."
Wrong, they can still be different. Our culture does things differently than those, say, in Italy. Ours is no better or worse than theirs. Just different. I think you are missing the fact that the nature of the relationships is not the same. The people in the relationships are equal (in the eyes of the law). But the relationship itself is not. Thus it needs to be treated differently. No morals there.
I don't think it is fair for you to request an argument that is "non-moral." If that were the case you can have an argument to justify just about anything. I don’t ask you to make an argument detached from your secular views. It seems as though you want to discount any argument solely on the fact that it come from a religious perspective. Thus giving us a glimpse as to how you view religious people. People with no arguments and no social significance.
Polly,
I am all about being fair. Let the gays have a recognized "civil union." But let us not fall into the temptation of equivocating it with marriage. They are not the same. The working models are different. I think you understand this by your “mild handicap” line.
“Considering the amount of discord, divorce and single parenting that follows many heterosexual marriages, I don't think your argument holds.”
There are two facets to this view. One, we as a country have slowly accepted the break-up marriages. Marriage is not the noble institution it once was. Divorce is accepted as commonplace. We look back through the looking glass and most call this progress but it is really chaos (is that a moral statement?). So I readily understand that it is hard to gain credibility against your argument against the backdrop of our current social trends. So with that said, it is upon you to look back and say, “this is not the way it should or shouldn’t be.” And then, if you see that marriage does need to be revered, my argument does indeed hold. Two, it seems as though those who subscribe to this line of thinking feel as if gay marriage will bring the divorce rate down. The divorce rate is still gonna be 50% (and growing) regardless of gay marriage.
BJ,
Just so you are informed, I would consider myself religious. I am a Christian, attend a mainstream Protestant church every Sunday, am a lector and sometime Sunday school teacher, yada, yada, yada. I just happen to believe that my religious beliefs do need to be codified into law. (I actually have no problem with homosexuality, either, but that is out of step with my church.) To the contrary, I do not believe that people who are religious are insignificant, lest I find myself insignificant as well.
There is a difference that can be drawn between religious principles and moral ones. The prohibition of gay marriage is largely one of religious principles. Is homosexuality immoral in the same way as theft or murder? All these "crimes" have religions speaking against them, but one can argue that homosexuality is purely a religious "crime". In the end, two men having sex with each other does not negatively impact America, and need not be legislated against. Laws should be about preventing harm or promoting good. That is why murder is illegal and homeownership is incented. But I can find no reason, outside of religious DIFFERENCES, to outlaw gay unions.
Also, BJ, I think you and I are merely playing a semantics game. The words "same" and "equal" are not perfect synonyms. When you say two things are "different, not equal", it sounds as though you are saying they are unequal. In fact, they are different ("not the same") and they can be treated different. Just because they are different, though, doesn't mean they should be treated unequally about the government. (BTW, I am totally in agreement with you on the gay union, thing: Let churches determined who is "married." My guess is that CJ opposes that, too.)
Finally, CJ, you really haven't laid out any arguments that don't center on your personal morality. You've talked about a law in Canada that could never be passed here; the slippery slope towards polygamy; public schools teaching things contrary to your personal morals (a moral argument, BTW). Still, no rational argument for why governments should prevent gay unions.
--Jack
Here is CJ's argument, so that other readers don't have to go searching: "...homosexual marriage serves no compelling state interest. Interracial heterosexual couples can procreate, and thus do serve a state interest (propagation of society). Yes, some couples are infertile, but the state would have no reasonable way of knowing that. Heterosexual marriage provides a reasonable expectation of propagation, outweighing the risks of infertility from a state policy standpoint. Homosexual marriage by definition provides no expectation of propagation and thus serves no state interest."
I stand corrected: That is a non-morally based argument. I'll revise my statement: "No one has yet offered a CREDIBLE, non-morally based argument against gay unions." Your argument about "no compelling state interest" is so full of holes, I don't know where to begin. Polly did a pretty good job shooting your argument down. I'd add that given the number of kids awaiting adoption, it would be in the state's interest to both allow gay couples to marry AND let them adopt kids (something else I imagine you might oppose.) Otherwise, ignoring the slippery slope arguments that you are so keen on, I can think of a whole rash of laws that don't pass your own test. What compelling state interest is there in preventing discrimination? Oh yeah, it is called equality...
B.J.,
re: "I am all about being fair. Let the gays have a recognized "civil union." But let us not fall into the temptation of equivocating it with marriage."
Other than the genders involved, what's the difference between a civil union and marriage? If you want to call a gay marriage a "civil union" fine. Nifty swifty. Call it a tea party for life if you wanna. As long as said civil union comes with all the rights and legal protections that a government approved hetrosexual marriage has, no problem. The government doesn't have a problem collecting taxes from gays, so they shouldn't have a problem recognizing and putting their stamp of approval on gay marriages/unions/domestic commitments/co-habitat for life contracts/or whatever title soothes the chip on your shoulder and doesn't dirty or ruin the word "marriage" for you.
Frankly, I don't have a problem with someone who believes that gay marriage is wrong because they believe God deems it vile. I don't agree with the view, but I can understand it. There are things I believe are wrong simply because they are morally objectionable and not because the state has any interest. Animal sacrifices, for one. Fake coffee creamers for another. (Not that the two are equal, mind you.) I sympathize, but if you want to talk "slippery slope" try making laws based on that belief. We tend to call governments and countries who make laws based on religion "backwards" and "living in the dark ages." Then we bomb them.
"Other than the genders involved, what's the difference between a civil union and marriage?"
The name...or title if you will. What's in a name? Well, alot. But we live in a culture and generation that seems to place less and less significance in words and meaning because nothing has much meaning anymore. You say flippantly "what's the difference other than gender" as if we are just comparing two objects. As if to say, "what's the difference between Special K and Corn Flakes." But gender is quite significant. We fail to see the big picture here. This is where we can go back and forth forever. So I will not try to draw this discussion out.
What is the difference other than gender? Gender is the difference. Because two people of the same gender form a relationship, there are natural, physical, social and psychological ramifications associated with it. Those ramifications result in an environment that is not optimal for the promotion of family. Thus it is not good for us as a society and government to uphold it as the standard.
One example that I can think of is the psychological affect a homosexual relationship will have on a person. When you think about it, a sexual experience for a gay or lesbian, although pleasurable, will ultimatley leave that person unfulfilled, because the natural realization of procreation will never be realized. Now you may say, "you don't need to have a child to be sexually fulfilled." True, but at that point a gay person is only reaping half of the benefit of the gift of sex. I would say from that alone homosexuality promotes the indulgence of "pleasure only" sex. Or perhaps "pleasure mostly" sex. This is not how relationships that form the core of a family were designed. Therefore not the ideal. Just my thoughts.
You misunderstood my question. I realize that gender would make a huge difference between civil unions and marriages. What I'm asking is, legally speaking, what do you think the difference should be. Would those entering into a government approved civil union receive the same benefits and penalties that heterosexual marriage receive?
"As far as pleasure only sex is concerned and gays only reaping half the benefit of the gift of sex" is concerned, I think you are greatly underestimating biology, Mother Nature, or God. Sex serves multiple needs. If it were designed for procreation, or even primarily for procreation, there would be no need for a sexual drive. There would be no need for it to feel good. Babies and kids are too cute and wonderful for most of us to pass up. Proof: In vitro is an expensive, painful process with far from gauranteed results, and yet people are lined up in droves at fertility clinics. Moreover, why would there be a desire for sex when a woman was not fertile if the primary purpose was simply procreation. Other species have no sexual drive unless the female is in heat.
I argue that if we are, in fact, made in God's image, then sex is by nature complex and meant to address multiple needs. This is rather common as far as traits are concerned. For instance, the sense of smell allows us to detect enemies, danger (i.e. smoke/fire), we are not as likely to starve because we smell to detect food, and our sense of smell also helps to direct and attracts us to a mate.
Perhaps God intended sex to feel good as an inducement to stay close to our mate for life.
Most females hit their sexual peak in their late thirties, early forties. Well after the ideal child bearing years. Most males hit their sexual peak in their teens, well before they have the maturity to be competent fathers.
The truth- God made sex complicated to address various needs- procreation just one of them.
B.J., when you are old and grey and still madly and passionately in love with and sexually desire your wife who is past menopause, will you still consider that you are only "reaping half the benefit of the gift of sex?" I would wager that you will feel that you are using sex as it was intended- an inducement and loving bond intended to keep a relationship/commitment everlasting.
Are gays capable of that as well?
Polly,
This is where blogging starts to break down. We will keep trading comments back and forth until our fingers fall off. Most of the confusion is my lack of ability as a writer to effectively make my point. So here is another attempt. I thank you in advance for your patience.
I think legally speaking our government should acknowlege the union of 2 people. I think though that a homosexual relationship needs to be treated differently in the eyes of the law though. I think a heterosexual couple should get prefence when it come to adopting children. I don't base this on any emnity towards gays. I base it on the welfare of the child. In print I know that seems mean spirited but I hope my further points will clear that up.
I will take my pshcological ramifications argument one step further. Since only one person in a homosexual relationship can be a blood relative to a child, wouldn't it be safe to say that the potential for jealousy envy and the like be greater? What about the affects on the actual child? How many adopted adults do you know who long to know who their real parents are. For me all of them. What kind of pshcological stress would this put on a child knowing that one of it's parents is really not. Don't get me wrong. This can still provide a loving and nurturing environment. But from the "get go" homosexual relationships have handi-caps (your word) by design.
But back to your last comment. It seems we agree that the purpose of sex is more for just pleasure. Yet pleasure is a component of sex. By design a homosexual relationship is exempt from another component of sex. The natural conception of a life. One could argue that sex and procreation are completely different. But then one would have to logicly conclude that sex has nothing to do with procreation. This logic fails. Procreation is the direct result of sex. Just because procreation does not occur every time does not mean it is no less a component. I will illistrate it this way. Tak a transgendered person who has taken the ultimate leap and gone throu corrective surgery. Say that a male wishes to be a woman. Despite all of his attempts to change his behavior his thinking and his anatomy.....regardless of how much we as a soceity accept him as as woman and cater to his desire. Even if he were to relocate to another country as a female. He will never be one completely. He will never know what it is like to be a little girl. He will never know the horror of a first menstration. He will never get to experience the core of developing into a woman. At best he is a very close simulation but not the real thing. The same is with gay marriage. It does it's best to immitate the real thing, but at it's core it is a simulation.
Here is where I ask you to keep an open mind and see the big picture. Or at least try to see it from my perspective. When my wife and I are old and gray, we will be enjoying that other component in a most incredible and beautiful way. Our children will be there for us to be in communion and fellowship with. In a sense the component of sex that I was talking about before will continue. You may say I am confusing fellowship and relationship with that other component. No this is a direct result of that compnent. What about those who can not have children? Just because one can not have children does not mean that the design is bad.
By all of this I want it to be known that I do not think gays and lesbians are vile or disgusting. I want them to be loved, respected and treated equaly under the law. My whole areguement is that homosexual rerlationships introduce a whole gammet of ramifications and hurdles to not only the couple but also any potential children that are not there by the original design. We should not hold this simulation up as being the same. We need to openly discuss the natural problems associated with being in a gay committed relationship. But nobody wants to even shine a light on that. Why is that?
BJ,
I want to commend you on your arguments. I think they are well thought-out, and obviously deeply rooted. And while your beliefs may be rooted in your personal religion, the arguments you make about gay marriage can be completely severed from what your particular God might have to say on the subject. So many others on the anti-gay-marriage side seem mostly to decry the possibility because it offends their brand of morality. I believe that deep down, based on their arguments, that many of these same people would just as soon see homosexuality outlawed (ala Texas' recently struck down sodomy law).
While I disagree with some of your premises, I do agree that "legally speaking our government should acknowlege the union of 2 people." And that is really what we have been talking about this whole time (or trying to). No one has to be forced into thinking that gay marriages are the same as hetero marriages. Believe what you want. But government should not be in the position of discriminating based on the positions that some (or even a majority) hold.
Thanks for your arguments. It has helped me understand your positions better.
"We need to openly discuss the natural problems associated with being in a gay committed relationship. But nobody wants to even shine a light on that. Why is that?"
Ah, for the same reasons as no one wishes to discuss why the crime rate is higher among blacks. It just ain't PC to make people look at themselves and their flaws.
I do not support gay or straight couples procreating in such a manner where one parent is a blood relative and the other isn't. I agree that it sets one up for a host of problems and jealousies. Moreover, there are so many kids out there without loving parents or homes, why o many require genetic offspring- especially when the methods of getting said offspring are often SO un-natural. (What people go through during the whole invitro process... makes gay marriage look as natural as the sun shining in August by comparison). Hetrosexual couples do much the same as gays in this senario. Infertile women get implanted with their sister's eggs. Or have a stranger's sperm meet up with her egg in a lab petrie dish. One partner in an infertile hetrosexual couple may well not be blood kin to their own child. This is where we get into a side argument as to whether or not adoptive is as valid as biological parenting- I hope the answer is yes. Of course we all know people who have "made" not adopted duds!
I think your contention of giving hetro couples priority when it comes to adoption needs work. I do have one adopted friend who, at almost forty, has not and has no desire to find her biological parents. I also have a cousin-in-law who feels the same way. However, you are right, I think most adopted children wish to know who their birth parents are, but not because they need a void filled, but because they want to know exactly where they came from and the specifics that made the adoption necessary. It's not so much a desire to have a relationship with a birth parent, but more the desire to have more knowledge about one's own self, I would bet.
An adopted child will have this curosity (if I'm right) or void (if you are right) regardless of whether they are adopted by gay or straight parents.
I think your argument would have a lot more weight if you could accurately state, "Gay marriages are less stable and not likely to last as long as straight marriages, and therefore they should not be allowed to adopt." We won't be able to say that, unless we allow them to wed or civil unionize.
You and I will never agree about sex and the importance of procreation. You seem to be saying, "If it were equal, they would be able to reproduce."
I say nature likely made gays for the purpose of existing without reproduction- i.e., to pick up the slack and to protect the earth's resources. Homosexuality is too common in nature for it not to be natural. Unreproductive sex is much, much, much more common than the reproductive variety which also must have been well thought out by nature.
Nonetheless, I concede that a childless marriage is not the same as one with children. Not necessarily better, or worse, but certainly not the same.
However, marriage is a life long promise of commitment between two people - not a promise to have children necessarily - and it is promise that many couples, regardless of sexual orientation, wish to have blessed by the State. You seem to agree that gays are entitled to this same blessing, which I appreciate.
Thank you for your considerate points. I have learned from you.
Polly
I will not belabor this discussion any further. At least we can respectfuly acknowlege our differences. I know that at some point down the road I will most likely have to accept the fact that our country wants to "progress." But I will leave you with the words of G.K. Chesterton:
"Before you go tearing down walls it is wise to give pause and contemplate why they were put there in the first place."
If you have not read any Chesterton I strongly encourage you to do so. Blessings to you and Jack. Looking forward to our next discussion!!
"Before you go tearing down walls it is wise to give pause and contemplate why they were put there in the first place."
I agree completely! I'm sure Abe Lincoln gave due consideration before writing the Emancipation Proclimation, for example. Women must have given those walls a lot thought before demanding the right to vote. Citzens in Berlin considered them -literally and figuratively- before taking down The Wall that divided families for over half a century.
Some traditions are sacred. Other traditions are simply cruel. All traditions should be re-examined now and again.
I'm currently on a quest to have my family re-consider the long standing tradition of having the women slave, er, I mean, prepare grand holiday meals and then have them return to the kitchen to do the mountain of dishes while the men return to the T.V. to slumber in a food induced coma.
I admit, Polly isn't too traditional. B.J., I wish you well. I wish you peace. Thanks for the enlightened debate.
And I will check out Chesterton.
"Traditions are the democracy of the dead"
That is another quote from Chesterton. I think his book Orothodoxy is a great place to start. It is a book worthy of reading many times in one lifetime.
Gays don't deserve to marry, hell they don't deserve anything.
Damn faggots
Anon,
Thanks for your enlightened and well educated comments. They fit in so well and add so much to what has been a thoughtful debate... NOT!
Don't you have a date with your cousin tonight?
People are so damn closed minded nowadays its sickening! What are homosexuals doing to you? Damn if they want to get married let then. Are we scared that they will prove us all wrong by outlasting our marriges. Live and let live damn!
>> "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." <<
well, you fall into my "idiot" category of a person
Gosh, Chris, don't make me cry. What about the post or the lengthy debate that follows makes you believe name calling is justified? The post may have its flaws, as well as the debate, but I believe the only idiotic comment was yours. Making you the only idiot, Chris. You may want to take the time to actually READ the entire post before you go all hysterical and start calling folks names.
Post a Comment