I posted this on my personal blog on election day and have been wanting to post it here, since I know I'd have a wider audience, but I wanted to wait a little bit until there had been a few posts on other topics. I figure now's a good a time as any to post my thoughts (edited a little because I referenced ProU and it would look weird to refer to the site the blog is hosted on).
Gay marriage, and homosexuality in general, has been a fairly hot topic around here, and Prop 8 has been the topic of more than a few entries and it seems to have everyone, in places other than ProU, divided over the Proposition, and ultimately, over gay marriage as a whole.
Now, what bothers me most about the whole situation is that those that are against gay marriage keep using the rhetoric that gay marriage will destroy heterosexual marriage.
Um...someone, please? Tell me how, exactly, is the prospect of my ex-stepmother marrying her long-time girlfriend, or the lesbian couple I used to babysit for, affect in any way, shape, or form to my heterosexual relationship with my husband? I've actually looked around for this one and have yet to find a reasonable answer.
But before the Conservatives that read this answer, let me address what I have come across and why I don't consider the reasons given to be "reasonable."
1. Think about the children! -- One of the main arguments is that the children will be damaged, either through learning about gay marriage or having gay parents. Considering that my brother and sister grew up with their lesbian mother and have done just fine, and the kids I used to babysit have done just fine, I find that kind of narrowmindedness rather disturbing. One site that I found went so far as to imply that most of the people in jail were from families that didn't have a father (not just a mother or a father, but a father, specifically). Well, considering I know people from families that were not only traditional, but also strict Christians who are now in jail for various different crimes (or, in the case of some family members, that I've cut all ties to because of their gross lack of morality), and the fact that most of the best people in my life, and myself included, grew up without a prominent father figure in their life, I find this implication to be FUD, at best.
Now, I'm not denying that the "ideal" situation is the biological mother and father raising the two-point-five kids in a Cleaver-family fantasy, but the fact is, that's an unattainable ideal in society as a whole. It's a fact of life that...well...shit happens. There's something along the lines of a 50% divorce rate in this country. So...you're telling me that you'd rather see kids in that kind of situation?
What I find ironic is that most of the people who are against gays and gay marriage are also pro-life. They insist that adoption is the best thing to do if a mother doesn't want her child. The sad irony, however, is the number of gay couples that are denied adoption because they are, in the eyes of the law, single, and in most places, being single disqualifies you from adopting (and in some cases, being gay does, as well). So, all those unwanted kids are fated to be shuttled between foster homes and orphanages because people can't seem to look past their own noses.
Adults seem to think, for some bizarre reason, that kids will be mortified and scarred for life if they learn about something that's even remotely controversial. Um...what age is it that usually asks the inevitable question, "where to babies come from?" Oh yes, five. At five years old, kids are curious about things that most people think are "grown up" stuff. Yet kids are significantly more understanding than adults in a lot of cases. So, if they ask something like "why does Jimmy have two mommies?" they'll accept the answer that Jimmy has two mommies because they love each other, and move on. They won't inherently think it's weird or gross or even all that different. Those are learned behaviors.
2. It's immoral! -- Well...this one's a matter of opinion, but the main basis of this opinion almost invariable traces back to Christianity and the Bible. The fun part is the Bible doesn't actually condemn homosexuality. Like the passages about witches, the idea that homosexuality is condemned in the Bible is a product of bad, biased translation. The fall of Sodom? Rape, inhospitality, whoremongering, NOT homosexuality.
What gets me is that a lot of the most vocal people for this one seem to equate being gay with wanting to pound anything and everything that moves (not to mention conveniently ignoring the straight people who do the exact same thing). We're talking here about people who are in a loving, stable, monogamous relationship between two people who want to have the same priviledges and rights that hetersexual people already enjoy (and in the case of California and Prop 8, are fighting to keep their rights, which have already been granted to them).
3. The value of my (hetero) marriage will be dilluted! -- Again, I fail to understand this one. How does someone else's marriage, regardless of orientation, affect mine? It's like saying that because my stepfather got divorced three times and my mom is now his fourth wife, that my marriage with my first, and only, husband is somehow less valuable because of it.
4. Marriage has traditionally been between one man and one woman and is divinely inspired! -- Um...no. Google "history of marriage" and you'll find that not only does marriage predate Christianity, but has only fairly recently (like, the time of Constantine) been a religious thing. Traditionally, marriage was a legal contract that formed alliances between families, clans, tribes, and even nations for purposes of power or wealth. More often than not, marriages were arranged. In places where those being married had some choice, the suitor had to offer a dowry and essentially "buy" their spouse (in most cases, the suitor was the husband, who had to prove to a woman's father that he was able to take care of her). Nobility of one country would often marry nobility of another as part of treaties.
Then, there's the whole "one man, one woman" thing. Again, that's only a fairly recent occurrence. Typically, it was one man and many women. In some societies, there were even homosexual marriages. Most of the people in the Bible had several wives. Some are said to have had dozens. Even Islam teaches that a man can have more than one wife if he can support them and love them equally.
5. It will open up doors to poly and incestuous marriage! -- I admit, this one is remotely plausible, at least for the poly part. In regards to poly marriages, though, see #4. As for incestual marriage, we're not talking about an identified group, such as blacks or Hispanics or gays. Therefore, there's no such protection for people who engage in incest. There's also the fact that it's a nearly universal belief that there is no consentual incestuous sexual relation and it's considered sexual abuse in almost any context, not to mention the increased chance of birth defects in kids born from incestuous relationships.
So, taking into account the matters I've already discussed here, can someone please enlighten me to a good reason why gay marriage is so feared in this country?
There are lots of arbitrary reasons people have banned marriages. For instance, why is there a ban against polygamy? How does a person having multiple wives affect your single marriage?
Why is there a ban in incestuous marriages? Or do you think the state has a right to ban couples based on DNA?
And about traditional marriage -- even if it is a contract or arranged marriage, it is still "traditional." And it is still done between men and women. If you are honest with yourself, even you should recognize that there is only one constant, and that is a marriage between men and women, sometimes multiple men or multiple women, but still opposite sexes. That some societies at one rare point or another chose to have homosexual marriages make their marriages outliers. And outliers, again, if you're honest with yourself, can hardly been called traditional.
There is absolutely no reason that gay marriages should not be banned based on yet another arbitrary reason. If a democratic society chose to act on this arbitrary reason, why complain so much about it? Just accept it as another worthless ban.
If you are honest with yourself, even you should recognize that there is only one constant, and that is a marriage between men and women, sometimes multiple men or multiple women, but still opposite sexes.
"Honest with [myself]"? What?
Perhaps it's you who should be honest with yourself, considering, like I said before, homosexuality is actually rather prominent throughout history.
There are lots of arbitrary reasons people have banned marriages.
Not really, actually. Or at least, when people ask why, it all boils down to one thing -- Christianity (as a whole) teaches that homosexuality is a "sin," and so people think it's "disgusting."
If there are other reasons, then those who have those reasons haven't spoken up that I've seen.
If a democratic society chose to act on this arbitrary reason, why complain so much about it? Just accept it as another worthless ban.
Because there is no justification for a "democratic society" (should I remind you that the US is a republic, not a democracy?) to deny people rights for no other reason than "because I said so."
As for the bans on polygamy and incest...
The fact that you asked those questions suggests that you didn't actually read my entire entry, otherwise, you would have seen that I don't agree with bans on polygamy and why I understand why incest in banned (I have no issue with consensual marriage of any kind, but incest is considered to never be consensual).
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
And about traditional marriage -- even if it is a contract or arranged marriage, it is still "traditional."
Point of Fact. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that appealing to "tradition" is not a valid defense for continuing an unconstitutional practice.
That some societies at one rare point or another chose to have homosexual marriages make their marriages outliers. And outliers, again, if you're honest with yourself, can hardly been called traditional.
As noted above, the argument from tradition is not a valid defense. And, I have to point out that societies that embrace same-sex marriages aren't nearly as "rare" as you would like to suggest. In fact, there are numerous examples of the relationships of same-sex couples being recognized as "marriage" in a great many historical--and in a growing number of modern--societies. For example, from the African continent we know of the Yoruba, the Ibo, the Nuer, the Lovedu, the Zulu, the Sotho, the Kikuyu, the Nandi and the Azande peoples (just to name a few of the more well-known), all of whom have traditionally recognized same-sex marriages since ancient times. Closer to home, there are similar marriage arrangements that are historically associated with a number of Native American tribal groups, including the Mohave, the Lakota and the Zuni peoples. These Native American examples are particularly interesting, due to the wealth of sociological literature from the colonial era regarding the study of the "berdache."
More examples include the Safavidi Dynasty (of the Middle-East), the Melaneians and Papua New Guineans (in the South Pacific), the people of the Song, Ming and Qing Dynasties (historical China), and the Samurai who practiced Shudo (in Japan). These cultures also demonstred a wide-spread accepted same-sex marriages in their midst. And let's not forget the Ancient Greeks and Romans. The Spartans (for example) practiced same-sex military marriages, and the Emporer Nero publically entered into a marriage arrangement with his male lover, Sporus (and many other similar relationships are well documented in the historical records of the Empire). The simple fact is that the idea of accepting same-sex couples is neither a recent nor a particularly unusual societal affectation. On the contrary, when you step away from the always ego-centric myopia of Western judaeo-christianity and islam---and the often quite imaginary versions of redacted history that they tend to espouse--the rabid opposition same-sex couples and their relationships that we see today seems more than a little odd.
There is absolutely no reason that gay marriages should not be banned based on yet another arbitrary reason. If a democratic society chose to act on this arbitrary reason, why complain so much about it? Just accept it as another worthless ban.
Actually, "arbitrary" legal restrictions are almost always unconstitutional. The way that you fame your argument reveals the fundamental flaw in your reasoning. Let me refer you to yet another Supreme Court decision...
TTFN,
Blackout
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
From an economic stand point, it will push the cost of wedding dresses up and all the other marriage amenities. It may also prevent me from beinging married at the location and time I choose. Hmmm I am already married I guess I really do not have to worry about that specifically.
For the record, I voted No on that particular prop for many reasons. One, because I can not make a law based on religious beliefs. Two, I am pretty sure I am still undecided on wether I think Homosexuality is enviormental or genetic (no scientific proof) and what those ramifications might have on a faith based idealism. Third, and most importantly, they are people and deserve that same dignity and rights as any other person on earth and its wrong to have the counter majority vote on the civil rights of minorties. Its like linching people for drinking out of a white man's water fountain.
Great POST!
Love is like a box of chocolates; if you chose wisely you won’t be disappointed and have to spit it out. ~T
Why does it matter if homosexuality is genetic or not? I understand how it can affect religious people, but why should that matter when it comes to legal marriage?
I think she just means that she's undecided about how she feels about it because there's no proof in the whole "nature vs nurture" thing.
Whether that matters beyond "at least we know," well, I think that's up to the individual.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
if it is behavioral and learned, versus decided by DNA, than those who wish to abolish itcould spend their time learning how to promote and nurture healthy heterosexual behavior by raising children in a healthy environment, rather than tantruming around it's reality.
I wish I had a memory for specifics, I don't. I remember things in stories. I remember a neuropsychology class where a study was done and concluded that a mother who experiences excessive stress is more likely to have a homosexual child. The basis was that under stress, the mother circulated more adrenalin and other hormones that altered the genetic make-up of the fetus.
I found that idea interesting, but unremarkable. Not long after I got a job in before and after school day care. I met a boy, who became my very favorite, and who attached to me pretty intensely, who was very effeminate and emotionally sensitive.
He was 7 and still in kindergarten. He sucked his thumb. He was adorable in appearance. Dark hair and big blue eyes, with pale skin and freckles. He had terrible fits when his mother left. It would take me 30 minutes to calm him down.
i would get annoyed with my director, a young athletic, guitar player hoping to be a rock star, who lusted after the kid's mom, a twenty something, pretty, sweet, single mom with an only child.
This director would force all the kids to go outside and play games like flag football. This boy would cry and cling to me in fear the moment he encountered aggressive physical contact. He wanted to stay inside and play with dolls.
I fought with my director, and we compromised when I suggested a science club for kids who didn't want to play sports. We made slime, paper mache volcanoes and went on bug hunts.
This little boy made me cry for two weeks after I quit this job. He personally gave me a balloon on my last day, and a card he made with a picture of himself crying because I was leaving.
After knowing him for 2 weeks, I read his file and discovered that his father was in jail for assault and battery and attempted murder on his mother. The man went to jail a year after he was born. The court reports say that the man beat his mother throughout her pregnancy. This boy had severe separation anxiety, and had expressed his sadness to me several times as a concern for his mother's safety. He wanted to always be with her in order to protect her.
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
I am sorry to not have responded earlier. I have come to this space several times to reply and explain but I just can not get it to come out right. I will have to make it a blog or something later... maybe when I get bored of studying out of town this weekend.
Anyway I do want to apologize for making it sound as odd as you took my statement. I did not mean that genetic/enviorment should affect the law. I did say it inregards to religious people/ perspective. As we have recently found out there are many religious people that voted the other way based on their uncertainty and removing rights of good people. I just was pointing out that I voted the other way for the same reason. I do not know but I am pretty sure that it being a genetic (God creation) then religious people could have voted the other way without fear of God.
Like I said its a complicated idea from a long conversation with my hubby and I will probably blog about it later if I can get it to come out without sounding terribly ignorant.
Thanks _Meke for pointing this out.
Love is like a box of chocolates; if you chose wisely you won’t be disappointed and have to spit it out. ~T
About the children...
I once heard a comment by a woman on the street disgusted about a gay couple walking across the street, holding hands. "Oh, that's sick. I'm glad my kids aren't with me. I don't want to have to explain THAT to them." I wasn't with her or friends, but it pissed me off enough that I asked, "What is there to explain? That sometimes men fall in love with men and women fall in love with women? Sounds pretty G rated to me." I walked away. I didn't' really care if they had a comment. Probably not though.
It's old, but it's probably still around- the idea that homosexuality might be "contagious." I think they used that to keep homosexual parents from kids- in custody battles, adoption, and foster care.
I had a class that talked about incest and the risks in having children. Sibling parents have very high risks of having birth defects, as do parents/child parents. Those, yes, I can see being illegal. The risk for birth defects goes up surprisingly little for cousins. I am not promoting incest, but I'm just saying, the fact is that what is illegal may not have a scientifically-backed reason to be.
As far as polygamy goes, it happens, but not legally. Think about the areas where polygamy is huge. All of the non-legal wives have children. How does one man support wives and all those kids? He probably doesn't. The other "wives" are probably getting state aid for their kids. If there was legal polygamy, the men could not marry more wives than he could support. I think the biggest problem with polygamy is how it's practiced in certain religious sects. Pressuring teenagers to marry 50-year old men goes against the "consenting adults" portion of the law.
I don't really care if polygamy is legal or not, as long as all parties are aware of the situation. I don't really care who gets married, but consenting adults should have every right to.
-Sonja :)
"I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!" ~ Peter Finch as Howard Beale, 1976, "Network"
You know, I find it a little strange she would react so... violently (for lack of a better term) to a couple just holding hands. I mean, I'm used to seeing teenage girls walking around with their arms linked when they go shopping together; that doesn't mean they're gay, it just means they're good friends.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
"But before the Conservatives that read this answer..." Go to hell. I am just tired of people, especially on this site, lumping conservatives, Christians, or whatever into some evil secret ninja squirrel society bent on returning to the crusades.
1. Think about the children! Exactly, think about them. What is better, being raised in state run institution, or by parents who will love and care for them. Seem pretty clear to me. I admit, I only have a couple of gay friends, but to the best of my knowledge, you don't catch homosexuality. Love is love. Oh and by the way, I am also 75-90% Pro Life as well.
2. It's immoral! Possibly, depends on the norms and values of your particular social group. However, I really could care less. As long as I don't have to sit there while they are making out in front of me (which I don't care if you are gay or not, really don't want to see it) the morality, as long as it does not infringe upon my rights, does not affect me.
3. The value of my (hetero) marriage will be diluted! No, the stress of my wife caring for 3 kids, me being gone for over a year at a time, and the fact that I can not seem to figure out how to actually put my clothes into a clothing hamper seem to do far more damage than gay marriage.
4. Marriage has traditionally been between one man and one woman and is divinely inspired! See, I would say that love, true and unconditional love is divinely inspired.
5. It will open up doors to poly and incestuous marriage! Incest, probably not, health reasons for that. Poly, possibly, and I do have issues with that. Insurance and other benefits would suffer greatly under that. However, I don't know if gay marriage would have a correlation to that. Still between 2 people.
Well, holy crap, does that mean that there is a right wing, constitutional, pro states rights, small government, gun owning spaz out there that is saying they really could care less about gays getting married, and actually think that they should have that right...hmm, it would seem that there is!
There are a few of us "right wing, constitutional, pro states rights, small government, gun owning spaz" out here that are "saying [we] really could care less about gays getting married"
But i also think that it is hilarious when you said "I can not seem to figure out how to actually put my clothes into a clothing hamper seem to do far more damage than gay marriage" because seriously the biggest issue in my marriage is that my husband has the same 'put-it-on-the-floor' disease.
Well said!
Love is like a box of chocolates; if you chose wisely you won’t be disappointed and have to spit it out. ~T
:-))
I'm afraid my husband would say I have that "same 'put-it-on-the-floor' disease."
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
"But before the Conservatives that read this answer..." Go to hell. I am just tired of people, especially on this site, lumping conservatives, Christians, or whatever into some evil secret ninja squirrel society bent on returning to the crusades.
For one, like I mentioned, this post was originally for my personal journal, which the opinions are more cleanly divided than they are here (not to mention the fact that my usual audience on here is pretty much the same way). Sorry for being human and offending someone I've never met.
Two, those types of accusations go both ways. I've been lumped in by Conservatives with the "gun-grabbing, baby-killing, evil Liberals" more often than I've been lumped in by Liberals with the "gun-toting, evil Conservatives," because I happen to be a Moderate -- neither Liberal nor Conservative, but too much of either to really see eye to eye with the other.
It was nothing more than a statement based off of my own observations as to who generally opposes the matter at hand -- Conservatives (specifically Religious/Christian Conservatives).
As for the rest of your post...I can't figure out whether you just read what I had bolded and responded to that, or made a long-winded version of "I agree," so I'm just going to leave it at that.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Think about the children!
forgive me but... :rofl:
I was standing outside a church waiting to see the bride and groom come out. many people were throwing handfuls of rise and flowers . I saw grandmothers, grandfathers, parents and plenty of children dressed up in formals who were excited and truly joyous lined up in two facing rows.
i was surprised. two grooms came out hand in hand kissing.
it appeared to me that the wedding was pretty traditional, a traditional Christian wedding.
Oooo I am curious. Can you tell me more about this church: faith base, state, etc?
Love is like a box of chocolates; if you chose wisely you won’t be disappointed and have to spit it out. ~T
I love the tradition argument. I love to look them right in the eyes and with a straight face say, "Tradition also dictates that we can buy and sell human beings. Wanna go shopping?"
-acertainsaint-
Sorry, quoting my boss there. Seriously though, the bottom line is that I have not heard one single valid argument against homosexuality or gay marriage in my whole entire life.
I have made so many comments saying the same basic thing, I get tired of repeating myself.
Yet, until this issue is sealed into our national constitution, I can't shut up. So, once more:
No matter what your stance about homosexuality there is absolutely no valid opposition. The only opposition are Bible verses and a vague "gay people have never been seen as equal before, why should we change now?" I am not kidding, that is the best I have heard.
I have my own blogs about why Bible verses don't cut it when it comes to policy making, "Secularism, the Greatest Modern Challenge to Religion," as well as "Rules for Religious Tolerance."
All this other crap about kids going to gay weddings for field trips and churches losing their tax-exempt status is a great big giant cauldron of poo!
If you want to legitimately argue any further, check out the website protectmarriage.com, the website for the organization that funded Prop 8. Protectmarriage.com produced the majority of the propaganda commercials on tv and the radio that pervaded the most bipartisan media agents those two months before the election.
I expected to find on the website actual articles or at least narratives about the insane allegations they made in their commercials. I found none. All I found was a bunch of rhetoric about how families are being threatened, and a lot of pictures of perfect home life.
When a coworker heard me talking about it on Nov.3, he said, "Wait a minute, I thought Prop 8 was about not allowing teachers to teach my kids how to be gay!" I swear to G-d, I am not lying, those were the words that came out of his mouth.
Ignorance might be bliss to the ignorant, but it makes me want to vomit.
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
Thank you. It's nice to know I'm not insane (well...that could be argued, but that's beside the point) and just missing the arguments somehow.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge