If anyone ever starts to lose faith in the value of equal rights for homosexuals, they should meet my cousin Bruce. Visiting with him reminds of why gay rights are so important, and why homophobes are such intolerable worms.
Yet many people - even though who claim to have nothing against gays or homosexuality – are still reluctant to let them marry. But why?
Of course, opposition to gay marriage is based on a number of things which are either false or irrelevant. Such as:
1. Homosexuality is wrong.
Pheh. If this is your argument, I won’t even try. Even according to my Torah, homosexuality is just an 'abomination'. That sounds harsh, but 'abominations' are not so bad. It's about on the same level of eating meat and milk together, wearing clothing made out of a mixed fabric, or growing two different kinds of crops in the same field. So I guess gays aren't kosher for Passover.
2. Marriage ought to be about children.
If you like to think of it that way, be my guest. If that were really true, of course, marriage would be illegal for couples who are sterile, infertile, or have no desire for children. And marriage is not about children in the first place. Until very recently, marriage was primarily a way for the moneyed class to look after their property.
3. Marriage is the basis of our civilization and has stood as an institution for thousands of years.
What civilization? Certainly anything remotely resembling our view of marriage didn’t exist for the ancient Greeks, or for any other Western culture. The whole concept of marriage for everyone who wanted to have children didn’t arise until the Victorian era. Before then, it was more common than not for lower-class people to live together and have illegitimate children with no social stigma whatever. I find such “it’s tradition!” arguments worthless in any case.
4. Gay people don’t take relationships seriously.
Lies. Gay people take relationships just as seriously as anyone. We’ve just been inundated with images of costumed gay men in cages dancing like Jerry Falwell’s nightmare. In any case, the divorce rate for gay couples in Massachusetts is far lower than the straight divorce rate in this country.
5. If you allow gay marriage, next thing you’ll have people marrying house pets and little kids and their sisters!
Nonsense. Gay marriage is between two consenting adults. Animals cannot consent; children cannot consent; family members cannot consent. If anyone comes forward and suggests we legalize those things, the gay community will stand as firmly against them as the Catholic Church, and probably more so.
6. OK, what about polygamy? They consent, right?
Well, technically it’s not illegal to ‘commit’ polygamy, just to try and get it recognized by the State. But if it’s not between two people, the relationship cannot possibly be equal, one could argue that no consent is really possible there either. And, by bringing up these 'slippery slope' arguments, aren't you conceding the original point?
11 comments:
I have a running commentary on a fool who is Atty Gen in Nebraska, Jon Bruning. He went to Washington, D.C. to advocate for families and did so by challenging gay marriage. He actually said, "Next thing you know, they'll want to marry a chair. We must stop somewhere."
I wrote this idiot savant to say I must have missed some contextual cues because the part I heard was this quote, and I could not believe he'd say THAT publicly.
His response was, "I apologize if I offended anyone with an inarticulate legal argument."
I know people who struggle with being comfortable around homosexuality. I remind them how sad it would be to wake up some morning in a world where who you and and how you love had become a cultural and legislative target for ridicule and hatred. It's even okay for an Attorney General to make ignorant, inflammatory statements and no one cares enough to force a retraction.
I'm going to research a link I once passed on, a very sensitive weblog post by the mother of a child who was hurt by anti-homosexual bias.
Agreed. I would add only that I think the institution of marriage is a positive aspect of society, and that gays should have every right to partake in that because of its positive nature.
Am I mistaken to assume that you want gay marriage b/c marriage is an unfortunate reality, but a reality nonetheless?
Smiling Neocon: I don't think marriage is 'fortunate' or 'unfortunate' by its very nature. For some it's heaven on earth, for others it's completely unworkable. The problem is that most people are taught that straight marriage is the ideal, so they feel guilty if they don't achieve it. There's no real awareness of the advantages and disadvantages inherent in the institution.
Cents for sense: Family members can't consent because the relationship is, to start off with, a loaded one. Parents, children, and other relatives can't view each other simply as people; there's an intimacy yet also a seperation there that can distort the way people act.
From a purely political standpoint, the Gay Marriage issue has done more damage to the Gay Rights movement than any issue to date. It moved a lot of people who had a basically libertarian view of the whole thing into the more conservative camp. Basically, those who otherwise believe 'If it doesn't effect me, I don't care' have been forced to take a side, and it generally isn't on the side of gay rights.
As I am now at home and not at school, I am less connected than I was. I shall try to be a presence nonetheless. Dratted dial-up.
I guess I'll have to be the voice of dissent here. For lack of a better way, I'll go point by point.
1. Is it so archaic to consider homosexuality wrong? I'd expect a little more "tolerance" on your part, even for my old-fashioned views.
Sex, as ordained by God, is meant for procreation. Any act that cannot result in childbirth is immoral.
2. Marriage isn't neccesarily about children, but they are a byproduct of many of them. As such, marriage should be protected as it is still the best--though certainly not perfect--way to raise children.
3. Marriage between a man and a woman is still a cultural tradition. For this country, it has been the means of raising a family. To ignore this and speek of ancient Greeks is absurd and beside the point.
Tradition alone may not be a reason for keeping marriage as is, but it is still tradition.
4. I've not heard this argument. It would seem to me that those gays wanting to get married do take the relationship quite seriously. Still, those gay pride floats with men dressed in drag do nothing to help the public image of more "serious" homosexuals.
Furthermore, many heterosexuals do not take marriage seriously. This would seem to be an indictment, not on heterosexuality, but on the institution of marriage in our society.
With marriage thought of as lightly as it is, it is no wonder some do not balk at the prospect of giving gays the right to marry.
5. The slipperly slope argument is often used as a not-so-clever, yet successful scare tactic. I cannot forsee a time when people wish to marry chairs. If that time comes, heaven help us all.
However, a laxing of sexual morality will surely lead to younger ages of consent. Shall we look to, oh, Europe, where, if I am not mistaken the ages of consent are quite low. (In the Netherlands for example, the age of consent is 16).
After all, if we cease to value sex for procreation--I know, old-fashioned values again--what standard prevents us from regarding any pleasurable sexual activity as kosher.
Once deemed acceptable, may not older men marry much younger women? Only time will tell, though this is hardly a leap of faith, given the current cultural clime.
6. Polygamy may one day be legal. From a legal perspective, a Supreme Court that invalidates sodomy laws due to a right to privacy may have a hard time disallowing polygamy and remaining consistent.
Conclusion:
Part and parcel of my belief system is the belief that though men and women are certainly equal, they are inherently different. Ignoring sage Biblical advice on the matter, it still makes sense that, if men and women are different, two men will do a much different job than two women, irregardles of love. The system is best, then, which takes into account both a man and a woman, intertwined in the institution of marriage.
Gender roles are changing, and some may say they have already changed. I'm a little late to these societal shifts. That being said, I still hold the above true.
Although my argument may not be convincing, I hope you all gained a little from this. There are reasonable people from "my side" who can disagree without being disagreeable. Remember, not everyone who dislikes the prospect of gay marriage is an intolerable worm. Not all Bible Beaters are homophobes.
Love the sinner, hate the sin.
a wiser man, not that I doubt your word that it exists, but could you reference the scripture that states only sex for procreation is moral? I don't believe the Christian bible to be the literal word of God, and as such feel free to engage in sex for fun, as well as eating meat and milk together, but I remain curious about scriptural foundations for these moral beliefs(and sometimes government policy)
This experiment in democracy we call America is turning out to be pretty complicated as society develops.The secular, pluralistic state seemed like such a great idea, but it's sure having trouble taking hold.
Unlike a Wiser Man, I happen to think that any sex act for pleasure is ok (between consenting adults, of course). And I think that there is too much emphasis on sex in discussions of gay marriage.
I saw a panel discussion by gay teens, and one of them made the wonderful comment, "When people hear I'm gay, all they think about is sex." Yes, how much of a marriage relationship is sex, after all? Even if you're doing it as much as you'd like, it's a small part of your day. It's only narrow minded patriarchy and personal squeamishness about sex in general (hetero or no) that gets people red hot on the issue. And the Bible of course, which can be twisted just about any which way.
Honestly, once you discard these absurd scriptural arguments which have no place in a civil/secular society (if that's what we have - it's what the Constitution SAYS we have) then all that's left is disgust. Racial bigots used to voice the same 'concerns' over the notion of a black man and white woman...holding hands, and more.
As for polygamy, I'm all for it, as long as it's allowed for men AND women, and as long as the same legal rights and obligations apply for all the spouses as we have now. Who gives a hoot?
loyal acahtes
I did try to find an adress to reply to you as a comment left on my blog. But I could not find one. So I am leaving you this link in your comment section for you to read it.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/danielyaracuy/111509043334635245/#196430
(apologis for the other folks leaving comments here for my out of context note)
My apologies for not commenting quickly. Take a look at Romans to see Paul's condemnation of flagrant sexual conduct (I think chapter 3 or 4). Also, Humanae Vitae (the Catholic encyclical on human sexuality). Sorry I can't be of more help, but my time on the internet is severely limited.
The bible says alot of bizzare and contradictory things, Wiser Man, and even if I did care what the New Testament says (and weren't a bordelrine agnostic Jew) it still wouldn't mean that saying 'It's in the Bible!' would have any meaning for me. If you can't show something is so without resorting to divine intervention, you've lost the argument.
Wiser was just answering a request of mine ,Loyal, to refer to some specifics so I might understand the context for this particular doctrine.The weight that these old books still have is fascinating to me,they have obviously helped (as well as hurt) alot of people through the centuries.
Post a Comment