I personally do not have any Gay friends that I know of... (or none that are out of the closet to me, or possibly to themselves) However I do have close friends that have had to deal with the reality that some of their closest friends were Gay. Most took it in stride, however it was quite a blow to my Right Wing Christian friends. They really had to weigh the friendship against their beliefs. The good news is that they chose the friendship, and rationalized their beliefs...
You can probably guess my views on this one:
- If you want "Marriage" to be defined as a domestic union between a man/woman, then keep it as a subset under "Domestic Union". (DU)
- Then immediately change all legal documents to specify "DU" instead of "Married". (As in "Are you in a DU?")
- Then immediately allow M/F, M/M and F/F Domestic Unions.
- Of course, all 3 types of these Domestic Unions should be given equal benefits and constraints under the law.
- There is no good reason that only M/F couples should be allowed the trials and tribulations of a legally binding long term relationship.
- If you naively actually still believe that they freely choose this life style, wouldn't you want them to be constrained in a relationship? Then it would be less likely that they would corrupt someone else?
MinnPost: Gay Marriage Amendment
MN Independent: ... Aren't Bigots
LezGetReal: God and Gay People
MN Independent: Kreisel Opposes
G2A C,F,S,C
G2A: Abortion War - Proof of Fascism
13 comments:
Wow. How wrong can you be? Government has a vested interest in establishing family unions and units, as the best and time-tested means of producing and raising children, while stabilizing the society. Government therefore rightly and reasonably bestows certain benefits on such officially sanctioned unions. NOTHING in current law prohibits a gay man from getting married as long as he marries a woman. Just like a fishing license, you have to meet the government's restrictions and qualifications to get a marriage license. Gays wanting to make a lifelong commitment can readily find a church that will perform that ceremony for them WITHOUT government interference.
I'm simply not buying the "born like that" argument, because some gay people marry and have children and THEN "discover" they are gay. They can behave, in other words, like straight and normal if they want, so gay behavior IS chosen.
If you want to recognize something other than marriage as marriage, than how do you prevent polygamy, polyandry and bestiality as legal "marriages"?
"How do you prevent polygamy, polyandry and bestiality as legal "marriages"?"
Simple: A DU involves 2 Human Adults.
Secondly: Marriage is M/F, DU is any of the combinations. Seems like a good compromise.
As for "born like that"... Do you really think people would willingly and of their own freewill choose to be Gay. Given all the self righteous and naive folks that make a point to harass them. It makes sense that people rationalize and bury their true selves as long as possible in our society. (even until after they have had kids)
Genetics vs Environment... I have been strongly attracted to women since I can't remember when. I accept that it is hard wired into my hormones and brain. As such, I am very aware that a slightly different chemistry could have resulted in a totally different attraction. Now can Environment overcome the chemistry we are born with... I highly doubt it.
J, Now imagine you were attracted to women in a world where only same sex unions were allowed. Would you conform by selecting a male partner and going through the motions, or break the social norms by finding a cooperative woman who was willing to risk their reputation, health and well being to enter into an illicit affair with you?
I am guessing it has pretty well sucked to be Gay in our World's Conservative Religious societies. No wonder some of them escaped normal M/F society into the celibate religious orders themselves. Too bad they could not always resist the Genetics that drove them...
You are conflating two things-- orientation and behavior-- and thereby muddling the thought process. Studies in rats indicate that, in highly stressed colonies, some male rats are born gay. It is counter-survival, and that can be useful if there are too many rats in the cage. But humans are not rats. It is possible that men can be born without the instinct to mate, more likely it is a tendency reinforced by environment, but in neither case can we say that BEHAVIOR is pre-determined; humans are not rats. If you aren't particularly attracted to women, I'm sorry and hope that therapy could help you, but it says nothing whatsoever about what behavior you choose to engage in.
Likewise, marriage isn't about "whom you love" because you don't need the State's permission or approval for that. You can even love your dog. And if you want to make a religious commitment, feel free; there are churches that will do it for you. And if you want "contracts" you can find a lawyer and draw one up, to cover most everything that the government confers with official recognition of marriage.
I will go this far in compromise. If your "DU" were a simplified packaging of these contracts, WITHOUT any of the rights and government benefits of marriage (including calling it marriage), I'm OK with it.
Thanks for a thoughtful, reasoned post, John. For a very long time I agreed 100% with what you've said, until I learned that there are countless laws (515 in Minnesota alone) that grant privileges to married couples only. Unless each of those laws is individually changed to include DUs, then a DU isn't legally equal to a marriage. But that's about details and semantics, and I appreciate your sensible approach.
I know more gay people than I can count, and most of them --being about my age and demographic--are in stable, long-term relationships. Some have kids. One couple are adopting a second kid (they have one bio kid) from the foster care system. They're dynamite parents and whatever child joins their family--it will likely be a special needs child-- will be a very fortunate kid, indeed.
Most of the opposition to marriage equality is grounded in a "morality" that I find anything but, specifically I am sick.to.death. of the "producing and raising children" strawman. Straight ouples get married every day who are infertile, who are over 50, where one or the other has been sterilized, or where they choose not to have children. Are opponents interested in outlawing those marriages? Fecundity is the most ridiculous reason I've ever heard.
Also? Newt Gingrich has done much more to devalue marriage than Barney Frank. Any politician who shouts about the "sanctity of marriage" and proposes anti-gay marriage legislation must be legally required to attach a bill outlawing divorce.
--Annie
Now that would be pointless, of course they deserve every legal benefit granted to a man and woman that enter into a Government Sanctioned Domestic Union. (aka Marriage) To do less is to belittle their human dignity.
You failed to answer my question... Would you go with that society's norms and marry a man, break the norms with a woman, or become a devout and celibate Holy man in order to not face the choice.
By the way, no where do I speak of Love. I am speaking of raw natural "physical" attraction. Are you drawn to the same or the opposite sex.
And if someone is attracted to their dog in this, even I agree that they should go for some serious counseling.
Some reading for people who are more interested than I am. I am already sold that it is somewhere in the genetics, it looks like the scientists are beginning to agree. Though I do agree that there are some who are on the fence and choose to go one way or the other. (or both depending on the day...)
Wiki Biology and Sexual Orientation
Wiki Homosexuality
U Chicago Differential
Annie,
I agree the "marriage" related laws would need to apply. And don't even get me started on Lucky/Unlucky kids... I'd happily give kids to a stable and responsible homosexual couple before giving them to a screwed up heterosexual couple.
about gay marriage vs civil or domestic unions, separate is inherently unequal. I would separate the state recognition from the church recognition. Let the state grant a legal contract of civil union (for all couples) and let each church grant and recognize marriage according to its own beliefs. The only fair alternative is for the state to grant marriage licences to all couples.
My church has a large sign on the corner proclaiming itself a welcoming congregation, performs many gay weddings, and has many terrific children in the Sunday school program who are picked up by their two moms.
I have both a cousin and a college friend who came out as gay in their forties, breaking up their long time marrages and families. I believe this must have been an extremely difficult and painful decision for them (both getting married and getting divorced.) As catholics they initially chose a marriage proffered by their church, but their sexual orientation is not a choice at all
It seems likely that this amendment will be on the ballot in 2012. I am cautiously hopeful that voters here will have the the knowledge to understand the issue and the tolerance to not enshrine discrimination into the constitution. Maybe having this issue on the ballot will help dems more this time by energizing young voters who support gay rights to turn out rather than stay home as they did in the midterms.
"but their sexual orientation is not a choice at all"
sure it is. The fact that some people only decide they are gay after 15 years of marriage and three children says that it IS a choice. Likewise the number of people who count themselves as ex-gays says that even orientation is a choice. It is quite obvious that gay people can marry across gender lines just as government and society prescribed. There is no need to recognize gay marriage because gays already have the option to marry, with full government benefits and recognition. That this may run counter to some hidden mental disturbance of their childhood or mental aberration of their later years is irrelevant.
Also the "fecundity argument"is at least as valid for couples in their 60s (with no hope of children) as it is for gay couples. The difference would be that the couple in their 60s would likely have already discharged their duties of procreation and could continue to role model for their children and grandchildren. I'm sorry, but a married father and mother are still the best way to raise children, and the only way to produce them.
I hear a lot of talk about "gay families" and it simply isn't the same. Most of them are created only by the dissolution of one or more heterosexual families, or in the absence of one (a.k.a. adoption). A change to the law would only encourage the former and minimally promote the questionably desirable latter.
The worst possible outcome of this debate would be to have some judge, acting at the behest of a tiny special-interest group, make the decision for the population as a whole. This amendment, once it passed and survived the inevitable court challenge by that tiny special-interest group, would prevent the problem. And it would not alter the rights of gays in the least in doing so!
J,
Thus your answer regarding my alternate universe example...
Though you longed for a sexual committed relationship with a woman... You would CHOOSE to have relations with a man in order to satisfy the GOD in that universe and the accepted Social convention.
Interesting...
Jerry--
Genuine question #1:
What other families would you like to outlaw? Is micegenation unacceptable to you? Muslims marrying Christians? What about single parents? Those also represent non-traditional circumstances.
Genuine question #2:
Approx 7% of American hererosexual couples of childbearing age are childless by choice.
Approx 10% of Americans are gay.
Are you prepared to deny marriage equally to both of these groups?
--Annie
ps--saying gays are free to marry--as long as they marry the opposite sex is a new one to me. Really? Are you married? Would you want your spouse to be gay? That's just. . . weird.
Word of the Day: Def by Merriam Webster
mis·ce·ge·na·tion noun
mi-ˌse-jə-ˈnā-shən
"a mixture of races; especially : marriage, cohabitation, or sexual intercourse between a white person and a member of another race"
Now for some humor...
By the way, after hearing the comments regarding women marrying other women later in life... I started to wonder if they are actually Lesbians or if they were just tired of putting down the toilet seat, listening to obnoxious bodily noises, trying to sleep through the snoring, fighting for the remote control, listening to hunting stories, not having someone to seriously listen about decorating ideas, etc....
And I was remembering the comments I heard from a younger lesbian on some talk radio show awhile back. They went something like this... "All these men like fantasizing about how hot things can get between 2 women... But I am here to tell you that us women have enough personal issues with sexual intimacy, now imagine how complicated it gets with 2 of us in bed. Sorry to crush your fantasy guys." I thought it was very humorous and candid.
I really dislike making the 13th post; I'm a bit triskadekaphobic, but it seems the ball is in my court. You are missing my point about those who "discover" they are gay after having children. My point is that they voluntarily entered into that marriage and behaved, obviously, in their traditional sexual roles. If you are born gay, you can't do it, supposedly. If after your kids arrive you "choose" to be gay, then you could just as well "choose" to stay straight. And if you start out believing you are gay, you could ALSO choose to become straight OR remain celibate. Nothing about "orientation" requires you to turn to behavior. We don't encourage those with rape fantasies to act them out, do we?
Genuine answer #1: I'm not trying to "outlaw" anything. I am all in favor of keeping the notion of marriage pretty much what it has been for the last several thousand years, minus a few stray hairs like polygamy. It is a time-tested way of producing and rearing children, guaranteeing the survival of a society and preserving its culture. And back to you, since polygamous families produce children and gay couples cannot, how DO you tell society that the latter is good and the former not?
Genuine answer #2: The "DINK" situation (double income, no kids). Strangely enough, this is actually one of the big "selling points" for the gay lifestyle, and it is why gay men tend to have higher-than-average incomes and lifestyles. Why burden that with kids or commitments? I guess the reason we permit normal marriage "unlikely" to result in children is because it still serves to stabilize society and preserves the culture of "normal" marriage. What "benefit" does society gain by giving government benefits and official sanction to a union that cannot possibly do these things? Isn't that the real issue here, that militant gays want to force "society" to recognize their lifestyle as "normal" and receive government benefits in the process?
Post a Comment