Posted 3 years, 6 months ago in the early afternoon by oso
This month’s podcast somewhat accompanies this post.
It’s been a long time coming: my response to the HP’s second argument in our series of blogger debates. For those of you new to the blog, the blogger debates between Hispanic Pundit and I evolved out of last year’s election. While I saw many progressives talking of either migrating north or “strengthening the base,” there seemed to be very little effort of reaching across the aisle to understand the other side.
Or maybe better put, of transcending the entire notion of two sides and an aisle and getting to the meaty heart of the issues rather than the sound bite rhetoric of left versus right. For that reason, I asked HP if he’d be kind enough to take part in a series of debates about real issues that seem to divide the country in a manner that doesn’t fall back on stereotypes and “my side versus your side” generalizations.
I can’t say we’ve been successful in staying away from those sorts of generalizations, but I do believe we have so far done in important service (at least to ourselves) in better understanding positions we disagree with and the roots of those positions. If you are interested in reading the debate HP and I already had over abortion you can read both his side and my own. (comment on those posts are still open)
When introducing his argument on why unborn fetuses deserve the same legal protection as born babies, HP brought up the civil rights movement and extending legal protection to those previously thought unfit. In fact, I will go a step further and say previously thought biologically unfit. That is, it was assumed a black man or woman was not deserving of the same legal protection and “privileges” of a white man or woman because they were biologically inferior. Studies of IQ, cranium size, and other “genetic” tests were compiled as evidence. Likewise, an important cornerstone of the pro-choice movement is that fetuses (especially first and second trimester) are biologically inferior to their born counterparts. Here it is consciousness and perception of pain which seem to be most important.
So it seemed only natural to extend this same line of thinking to protest the discrimination of homosexuals in US legal code (which, though beyond the scope of this debate, is much more than gay marriage). But then HP made an important point which first cracked up at what I thought was his ignorance, but has since made me seriously question the foundations of our sexuality. He said that homosexuality was not a definition of someone’s biological make up - or how they are born - but rather by their behavior. Go ahead, laugh, I did too. Is this guy from the 19th century or what, I asked myself. Then, I countered his comment asking, does that mean heterosexuals are also defined only by their behavior. His reply was “sure would.”
Don’t ask me how we get into this conversation, but at one time or another, I’ve asked nearly all of my ex-girlfriends and a good number of friends if they’ve ever had an erotic dream with someone of the same sex. Almost every one of the girls admitted that yes. Not surprisingly, only one guy friend of mine admitted the same. I think I probably first got the idea of asking when I read somewhere that some psychologists actually believe that humans - as a species - are to varying degrees, bisexual.
Now let’s think about what we want out of laws. We want to be able to behave as freely and naturally as possible without causing harm to others right? We must come to a compromise. I should be able to drive as fast as I’d like on a freeway so long as it doesn’t put others in danger. So in California we come to a compromise around 70 mph and in Utah around 55. But I cannot for the life of me figure out how two men or two women married and raising a family could possibly cause harm to others. Perhaps you may be bothered by homosexuality, but certainly not harmed.
In terms of the debate, my position doesn’t change whether you believe homosexuality is biologically determined or a psychological choice: your either discriminating against someone’s DNA or their behavior. Neither one is something that should be practiced in America or any other country. HP asks, why extend the meaning of a tradition that has endured millenia. I ask, why wouldn’t you? That much seems simple enough. But what I really hope to get out of this conversation (and I hope everyone comments uninhibitedly and respectfully) is what you believe the nature of homosexuality is? And for that matter, what the nature of heterosexuality is?
Blog buddy Myke seems to agree with HP’s definition of homosexuality - in other words, if you do, you are:
Have you ever noticed there are degrees of gayness? I don’t mean like you can be say 70% homosexual and 30% heterosexual or vice versa or anything like that. To me, you’re either gay or you’re not. It’s simple, if you’d sleep with men, you’re gay. If you adamantly wouldn’t, you’re not. Plain and simple. That’s not to say that even if you are gay, you wouldn’t ever sleep with a woman, either. Some would. Some very much do. However, I do firmly believe that a heterosexual man would simply NOT sleep with another man, period. Simple distinction.
Up until 1973 homosexuality was seen - according to the APA - as a psychiatric disorder which should be treated. Then:
In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the revised Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) after intense debate. They stated that homosexuality “does not necessarily constitute a psychiatric disorder.” Effectively, this saw its official acceptance as a viable sexual orientation and saw the increase in gay liberation throughout the Western world.
Many other associations across the world followed suit soon after. The American Psychoanalytic Association made similar steps and began accepting openly homosexual men and women. However, it wasn’t until 1992 that the World Health Organization ceased to classify homosexuality as a mental disorder, followed by the UK Government in 1994, and the Chinese Psychiatric Association in 2001.1
As Steven Kotler points out, there are generally two foundations to the idea that homosexuality is abnormal while heterosexuality is normal:
The first came from the Bible. The King James Version of Leviticus 18:22 is quite clear: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: It is abomination.”
Darwin, whose theory of evolution says that all life originated from a common ancestor, made the other frequently cited argument against homosexuality. The reason the tree of life is so varied is because reproduction is an inexact process. Mutations arise that either help or hinder existence. Helpful ones create new lineages; harmful ones die off.
While I can’t argue with the first, many studies have been done in response to Darwin’s assertion that homosexuality is an “abberation.”
From plasticbag.org:
Author Bruce Bahemihl, in his book Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and natural diversity, has cataloged over 200 vertebrate species in which same-sex genital contact regularly occurs. In some species, homosexuality is not very common - around 1 to 10 per cent of all mating. In others, such a bonobos, homosexual mating occurs as often as heterosexual mating. In some species only males participate, in others only females, in still others both sexes.
In humans, moreover, homosexuality is much too common for it to be considered a genetic aberration.
According to this website:
43% of Americans believe that ‘young homosexuals became that way because of older homosexuals’
But as J.M. Bailey pointed out as early as 1992:
No one has ever found a postnatal social environmental influence for homosexual orientation - and they have looked plenty’
There seems to be plenty of evidence to support the theory that our sexual orientation and/or preference is genetically determined:
One of the most frequently cited studies of homosexuality was that of Kallmann in 1952. He reported a one hundred percent concordance in identical twins for homosexuality, and only twelve percent concordance in fraternal twins.
Furthermore, sexual orientation in fruit flies has been changed by replacing a single gene. (Zhang SD. Odenwald WF. Misexpression of the white (w) gene triggers male-male courtship in Drosophila. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 92(12):5525-9, 1995 Jun 6)
And in the most thorough collection of research revealing the genetic correlation with sexual orientation, Dean Hamer found that the DNA marker Xq28 on the X chromosome is more prevalent in homosexuals than heterosexuals. (Hu S. Pattatucci AM. Patterson C. Li L. Fulker DW. Cherny SS. Kruglyak L. Hamer DH. Linkage between sexual orientation and chromosome Xq28 in males but not in females. Nature Genetics. 11(3):248-56, 1995 Nov.; Hamer, D.H.. S. Hu, V.L. Magnuson, N. Hu and A.M.L. Pattatucci, “A Linkage Between DNA Markers on the X Chromosome and Male Sexual Orientation.” Science 261(1993): 321-27.)
Not surprisingly, as the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality is quick to point out, there is more at hand than one’s DNA. If I were to have sex with a guy … let’s say, just for experimentation … then according to both HP and Myke, I should be considered gay because of my action. Even if I will never, my entire life, have sex or even thoughts of sex again with a man. Furthermore, where do bisexuals fit in?
Taking all of the science into account, it is tempting to conclude - as this undergraduate student did in 1994 - that our sexual orientation and/or preference is 50% genetic and 50% constructed. This makes sense to me and would explain why many men consider themselves straight and even remain married to their wives while having sex with other men. The same, of course, is also true with women. It would also explain why some groups claim success in “curing” homosexuality and why many straight men have sex with other men in prison.
I know that I feel 100% heterosexual. I am wildly attracted to women (one in particular) and have never once had any erotic thought, desire, or dream of a man. So I would assume that genetically I am heterosexual, but I have also been raised in a society and culture where it was very clear during my sexual development that I should be staring at, touching, and whistling at women, but never men. If it were the other way around, I can’t say with any certainty I wouldn’t also have relations with men. Reading Beat literature of the 1950’s is interesting because they formed a small community where sexual definitions were questioned. And you end up having someone who seems the quintessential heterosexual American male - Jack Kerouac - having sexual relations with both men and women.
In terms of my debate with HP, however, what is most important to keep in mind is that whether our sexual preference/orientation is biologically determined or socially constructed, no one should be negated the 1,049 benefits of marriage either way. I will answer his own arguments (which I realize I don’t even bring up here) one by one as a comment on his post, but what I’d like to see discussed on this post are reactions, ideas, comments, and violent dissent about how our sexual orientation and/or preference is formed. If there is new or different research or theory out there, please bring it up. Let’s help enlighten each other on a topic that doesn’t get dissected enough - whether it be because of political correctness or lethargy or just apathy.
Finally, as a progressive, I’ve got to say this feels like a hopeful and optimistic time to be writing this post. If our great-great-great-grandchildren do in fact read our blogs 150 years down the road I hope they will look back at the discussions taking place today in Massachusetts, South Africa, D.C., Spain, and Holland and see that they mark the long overdue change of tide when humans started accepting humans as humans. Have at it.
No time to be thoughtful right now, so I will just throw some gas on the fire >:)
Pheromone attracts straight women and gay men
Anti-gay-rights mayor outed
Nice post bro, I’ll stay away for a bit, I want to give some of your readers time to respond without my interference.
However, for the record, I did not make a claim either way whether homosexuality is biological. The reason I left that out is because it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and most gay marriage debates I have seen go off on tangents on that specific issue. Since I like to keep my discussions focused (saves everybodies time), I purposely left that out (However, my personal beliefs, while again irrelevant to the discussion, is that homosexuality is from birth - it clearly is an inclination that is programmed into the person, not of their own will - but again, not relevant to my point ).
So just to clarify, what I was trying to say was more of a semantics issue. I was trying to say that while one can define homosexuality in various ways, for the purpose of this discussion, I want to use the term only in reference to the act, whether or not one is inclined towards the act. Do you understand?
Passing the musical baton
Sean has passed me the “musical baton”. Total size of music files on my computer: 17.17 GB (roughly 44 percent legal) The last CD I bought was: Zero 7 — Simple Things (UK) Song playing right now: The Killers — Mr. Brightside (Jacques Lu Cont’s Thi…
I think that this post is gonna cause people to think, I know it got me thinking. I, for one, am a gay chicano. I grew up in a totally Mexican household in Chula Vista, CA. ( suburb of San Diego). I am the oldest man child of four boys and believe me when I tell ya’ll this, me being gay was not taught, or at all programmed into me. Growing in a stereotypical Mexicano heavy family, including many, MANY male cousins and uncles I just knew that I wasn’t like them, I may have been brown, loved agua de jamica and played basebol but I hated menudo and couldn’t climb trees and treat woman like objects.Me hating menudo made me more weird than me not wanting to whistle at rucas on the street. I am out to my family, we just don’t talk about it, and I am okay with this arrangement.It works fine for everyone, I have just turned into that uncle or cousin that swoops in for the holidays with crazy clothes and funny stories that makes everyone laugh, helps the Tias clean up and dances with his grandma. I would like to have the right to marry the man that I will one day meet and fall in love with, it would be nice if both my parents are alive to see and share that day with me…. I don’t know if this at all helps, I just felt that I needed to say something. Living in NYC I forget that not everywhere is as tolerant or blind as they are here…jose
I think that instead of asking “why are some people homosexual?” you could just as easily ask “why are so many people straight?” There is plenty of documentation of homosexuality going back as long as there was documentation. The bible would not have been concerned with “mankind” laying with “mankind” (out of curiousity does it mention “womankind” doing the same?), unless it was something that happened often and was widely known; and there is plenty of evidence of homosexuality long before that. So we know that homosexuality occurs in nature and has probably always occurred among humans. I think it is fair to say that homosexuality significantly pre-dates marriage. So, frankly, any biological argument will not be very convincing to me. So what other arguments are there for not allowing gays to marry?
I think the most common argument is that the “tradition” of marriage would be undermined by giving gays the right to marry. This argument is appealing because it allows its proponents to distance themselves from the real reasons they are against gay marriage — namely that they are against the life style. They want to discriminate against people who are gay because they want to make clear to their children and the rest of society that this “lifestyle choice,” or whatever they want to call it, is not okay. But saying “we are protecting tradition” is simply a way to avoid the appearance of outright discrimination. Regardless of whether this is a good argument or not, it is disingenuous because it is masking the true motivations of the person who makes it. At least the Religious Right is honest when they say that they think homosexuality is a sin and that gays will go to hell. They may be bigots, but it is clear for all to see. On the other hand, people who claim that they are against gay marriage, not because being gay is wrong, but because marriage as a tradition need protecting are either fooling themselves or hiding their real motivations. It is all too easy to draw parallels here between the segregationists who were only trying to protect racial “harmony” or to protect the “institution” of segregation. Tradition never has been and never will be a good reason to keep a blatently hateful and discriminatory regime in place. That is not to say tradition can never be relevant, only that tradition should never be seen as a justification for social wrongs.
Personally, I think that marriage (not necessarliy monogamy — though that is debatable too) is purely a social creation. The fact that it is regulated, encouraged and controlled by the government points to this. Both sides like to frame the issue as one of “rights” but this is just as dubious as the tradition argument for much the same reason. That is not to say that it isn’t useful in a debate. Rights-based arguments were largely responsible for the victories af the civil rights movement and for good reason. My position against rights-based arguments is a subject of a completely different post that I will hopefully get to sooner than later, but the point is that there are counter-balancing (though not necessarily equal) rights-based arguments on both sides. Thus, any legitimate argument about marriage should be grounded in social concerns. HP, from what I have seen, tends to make his points along these lines. His religion obviously impacts his feelings, and that is fine, and there also is a strand of upholding “tradition” in what he says, but for the most part I find his arguments honest in that he focuses on the social consequences of allowing gays to marry. However, once the argument moves from the rights-based universe to the shaky and subjective world of social utilitarianism, the argument gets cloudy. Both sides start pointing to one study or another of varying scientific rigor saying conflicting things with manipulable statistics and questionable variables. The truth is, not one of us knows the significance of these studies. Not one of us can say with certainty, “hey look at this, gays make great parents because r-squared equals .9″ or “I know this kid who had two moms and her life was hell.” You have to look at factors far more ethereal than any of us are capable of qualifying, let alone quantifying.
Along the same lines, how can we take these sociological arguments seriously when they are coming out of a society that openly discriminates against homosexuals and then points to their various (perceived) failures as evidence that they are unfit for the inclusion in the institution of marriage? That’s like saying blacks in the south in the 1800’s were stupid, when the obvious answer is that they were denied education and opportunity. You can’t deny an entire group of people equality and then point to any failures as a sign of their shortcomings. As a group that has been ostracized, condemned and villlified for decades, I’d say the gay community is remarkably successful — as illustrated by the constant paranoia of a “homosexual agenda.” Any arguments along the lines of tradition or sociology are bound to fail on the fact that they are arguments shrouded in social rhetoric that merely serves to perpetuate an already biased status quo.
I think we are left at a point where nobody is completely comfortable. People want answers. Like Ron Cruise (Cruz?) said in Oso’s podcast, “I do what I do to try to make this a place where definitions are clear, and [where his grandchildren's] future marriages…will mean the same thing that their grandparent’s did when they got married.” People have a desperate deisre to know what is what. They are uncomfortable with blured lines and questions of morality and right and wrong. They want brightline rules to point to when their kids ask difficult questions. They want a metatheory that allows them to detach themselves from their own decisions and choices. In a way I sympathize with this desire, but my ultimate reponse is “tough shit”. Life is about trying to find the answers to questions that are difficult…questions that are impossible…the perrenial questions of life that may not have answers at all. That is no reason at all to deny people their humanity; just so you can feel more comfortable in the world you live in.
In my opinion, the arguments don’t matter. Society is coming to accept homosexuality as a legitimate life choice, or biological outcome, or whatever. And once the stigma of homosexuality is lifted, the statistics and the traditions will change and we will be one step closer to a more just society.
Lethargy, I love that word…
To me, not all traditions are worth carrying on. Traditionally, slavery was seen as a viable economic alternative. Traditionally, women did not work and stayed home and raised children. Traditionally, you couldn’t marry someone of a different race. Traditionally, minorities could not vote. Traditionally, it was ok to beat the crap out of your wife because she was your possession.
You either evolve or you get ran over. Right now socially America is de-evolving (devolving? help me out college edumicated peoples). I’m with you Oso, I can not for the life of me see how two homosexuals marrying harms me in any way. But then again, I can’t see why our politicians spend so much time worrying about what happens in the bedroom of two consenting adults.
Oso….que bonito escribes….when I grow up I want to be just like you!
Abogado,
On the other hand, people who claim that they are against gay marriage, not because being gay is wrong, but because marriage as a tradition need protecting are either fooling themselves or hiding their real motivations.
I already spelled out my motives. I specifically said that my motivation is to protect marriage. To basically keep it objective, for objectivity is the only thing that a culture understands, and we all want our next generation children to grow up as healthy as possible.
I agree with you that some people are against gay marriage because they may not like gays. But the overwhelming majority of people that I know that are against gay marriage are against it out of a love and desire to protect the institution of marriage. In other words, they would just as vehemently argue against allowing polygamous ‘marriages’, or any other non-traditional marriage that threatens the objectivity of marriage as they do against gay marriage.
But since this discussion is turning on persons personal views of gays, allow me to be as clear as possible regarding my views. As I said above, I believe that people are gay because of an inclination that they can not control. In other words, even if they wanted to only be attracted to members of the opposite sex, they would not be able to.
How does this inclination begin? Is it from birth, or is it from upbringing? I would say that it is a bit of both, with more emphasis on the former. Most homosexuals I have talked to say that they felt it early into their childhood, and that many other people, often siblings, that grew up in the same environment did not experience the same desires.
Frankly, there is one argument by the proponents of gay marriage that does appeal to me. It is a fact of history that homosexuals have been treated really badly throughout history. So marriage could be a way to tell the world ‘we are just like you’. However, again, while that desire is understandable, changing the definition of marriage is not the way to do it. Marriage is the heart of society, and it primarily effects (or is it affects?) the most defenseless members of society, children.
I know that gay marriage proponents frame the gay marriage debate as if it is about gays, but it is not; the gay marriage debate is about marriage. Once you allow gay marriage, at that very instance, you have, by deduction, also said that marriage is not tied to children. And how that radically different teaching will affect our future generations, our future society, is something that must be taken very seriously. You may believe it will have no effect on society whatsoever, but it is clear that there is a potential risk.
So your claim that it hurts nobody is false. Gay marriage strikes at the very heart of civilization, marriage. And since marriage is directly tied to children, gay marriage puts our most defenseless members of society at risk, children. So if you want to know what the primary motivating factor behind those who are against gay marriage is, this is it.
As far as gay marriage being a civil rights issue. While I’ve explained how this is not the case several several several times before, I want to take another crack at it, using a different example.
I once read, although I can’t verify, that in the past Muslims outlawed writing with your left hand. I think it had something to do with a verse in the Koran that states that your left side is dirty or something (or it could have been false propaganda, either way it is just an example). Either way, for one reason or another, they outlawed children from writing with their left hand. In kindergarten, or the equivalent of that, the Muslim teachers were required to force children, whether left handed or right handed, to write with their right hand.
Now, of course we all agree that this is wrong. But would we say this is a civil rights issue? I don’t think we would. Banning someone from writing with their left hand, while the ban may be wrong, it is still a ban on an action. On the other hand, how would you go about banning someone from ‘being’ a female? Or ‘being’ a fetus? Or ‘being’ mexican? Or ‘being’ black? You can’t, since there is no action associated with either of those classifications. In other words, your gender, your stage of development, your nationality, and your race (no matter what Michael Jackson thinks), are non-behavioral attributes, they are not defined by actions, but writing with your left hand and homosexuality, is. Or to put it another way, the Muslims ban on left handed people is very different than, say, the Mormon Churches ban on black people in the hierarchy.
To give another example, the Catholic Church teaches that it is a sin to have sex before marriage. All of us may think this is too harsh, that it is undoable, that it is impossible to achieve, shoot, some may even think it is legalistic. But nobody would place that sin on the same level as say, a teaching that says it is a sin to be black, or a sin to be a male, or to be mexican. In other words, we all can distinguish between bans on actions, and bans on non-action characteristics. Someone who thinks homosexuality (the actions involved) is wrong, is on a very different level than someone who thinks being black is wrong. So the civil rights comparisons do not properly reflect reality.
The minute you say homosexuality is a civil rights issue, you have moved from the free-will ethics (free-will is a basic fundamental criteria of ALL ethics, regardless of religion or non-religious views), to the view that actions are no different than non-action traits. This would be a radical departure from previous views on ethics, and frankly, would be a fundamental error. You can say that a ban on an action is good, or that it is bad, or that it is stupid, or that it is superstitutious, but the minute you move to say that it is like a ban on a non-action characteristic (your gender, race and nationality), you have moved to a level that makes ALL ethic discussions moot. One can make ethical judgments on whether writing with your left hand is bad, or whether having sex before marriage is bad, or whether wearing a condom is bad, and even whether having sex with someone of the same sex is bad, but it would be absurd in ethics to talk about whether it is bad to ‘be female’, or ‘be mexican’, or ‘be black’, ethics presupposes an action involved, an action that comes from, either by allowing or willing, the person.
Arbitrary bans against gender, nationality, or race are very different than bans against homosexuals. One is clearly a civil rights issue, and the other is not.
Now, let’s discuss equal rights. Does denying gay marriage deny gays equal rights? I say no. Homosexuals have every right any other American has. I don’t have the right to marry anyone I want either. For example, If I fell in love with my sister, or if I fell in love with my (hypothetical) daughter, or my first cousin, or even someone of the same sex, I couldn’t marry them. You see, I’m restricted in the same way homosexuals are. I have the right to marry any female of my choice who is not already married and who is distant from me in terms of kinship; homosexuals have that very same right. By the way, by using these examples, I am not saying that one who wants to marry his daughter, his sister, or his first cousin is the same as someone who wants to marry someone of the same sex. My point here is with restrictions, arbitrary or not arbitrary. Homosexuals as Americans should have, and do have, the very same rights and protections every other American has.
With gay marriage, homosexuals want an additional freedom, a special right. What homosexuals seek, is not equal rights, they want special rights. They want more than the same legal freedoms we all have. The fact is homosexuals have the same freedoms I have; they just don’t want to exercise them. They want to be given, as a group, a special right to be allowed to marry one more group (members of the same sex) that other groups are not allowed. Do they want to give those who want polygamy the right to marry who they love as well? What about those in love with relatives? Where do you draw the line? As Americans, homosexuals should have the very same rights that every other American has, but as homosexuals, they shouldn’t have any special standing by law. Society has no obligation to grant that. This is specifically why I said, in the first sentence of my case against gay marriage, that this debate is NOT about gays, this debate is about marriage. What does marriage mean, what are its limitations, and what will changing it do to the future of society. How you answer these questions regarding marriage in general, will dictate on what side you stand on in this debate.
Oh yeah, before I forget, Oso, WTF, a former lesbian folk singer and a socialist poet in place of Hip Hop? Oh HELL NO!!! This hip hop loving conservative is offended!! lol
dude, homosexuality is so gay.
HP - sometimes I have no idea who you are talking to.
It’s easy to tell, just look at the name I addressed my response to.
But I see what your saying, I actually addressed my response to several of the other people who responded to this post. I just forgot to include their names in the title as well.
Wow … where to begin. I think what I’d like to do is put things a bit more concisely. Sort of ‘cut to the chase’ as it were. I’ve discussed the issues here at length on this blog, my blog, and elsewhere and clearly several here have given the issues thoughtful consideration as well. I think, though, it’s important to some times slice through the theoretical musings and point to very specific points that effect how people view such controversial subjects.
Let me begin with the what Oso quoted me on, as he said “if you do, you are”. I stand by this. It’s simple. I’ve lived through an existence in one of the most conservative areas of the country as a gay man trying to come to terms with being just that. I can say with authority that a) you do not choose to be gay. I know that prior to accepting my own homosexuality that I would have easily taken the ‘blue pill’ if it had meant a simple choice down the path of heterosexuality. Now, as I’ve said before, that doesn’t mean there are not individuals who are attracted to both. The bi-sexual factor of the equation is what is throws a wrench in to the entire discussion for many. More than likely, there are simply allot more bi-sexual folks out there versus wholly straight or gay. That’s what dilutes the “if you do, you are” theory some what.
Here’s an analogy that can serve to shed a little clarity on this point. You can think of the gay/bi/straight line of thought comparatively to the political spectrum. There are firm gays on the left, firm straights on the right and a considerable lot of BIs right there in the middle. Perhaps this will serve to alleviate a little of the fears of all of you hardcore straight guys out there that if you had one of those little erotic dreams with another male involved or had an “experiment” with a man, it doesn’t mean you’re gay at all. You might have a little bi-sexuality in you though.
OK. Now … the arguments above are an aside. What does this mean to the as to whether or not sexuality is a choice or a given .. nature vs. nurture or genetics vs. environment? I think I can be factual vs. theoretical when I say … let’s lean on the side of genetics here. The most firm example of proof I have is myself and my own experiences. Think about it. Why would any male raised in an extremely conservative societal culture geared toward predominance of males, that emphasizes the church as a moral arbiter of life (and the southern baptist one specifically), and raises both girls and boys to assume that the natural order of life is getting married and raising children? To specify further, in my case there was a family of all male children where all were involved in one sport or another with a very stereotypical (of the time) truck driver father and stay-at-home mom. In no way, shape or form, can anyone arguably with a straight face find any thing in my background or the way I was raised that contributed toward a “choice” to be gay later in life.
The gay factor enters men’s lives at different points but for most I’d say it surfaces following puberty. Perhaps a hormonal issue?? You struggle with it. At some point you accept it. Then you deal with it. Those born in a tolerant atmosphere (both familial and societal) have an easier time. The rest stay hidden much longer or simply flee to a more progressive area to live there lives.
So let’s now assume for the sake of argument in my assertion that gays are that way whether they like or not. What makes a person gay or not really is a mask for those wanting to use the thought that it’s all “choice” to solidify there point that homosexuality is just an aberrant lifestyle to begin with. Where does that leave us with the whole marriage issue?
I’ll have to firmly agree with Abogado in his assertion that … the most common argument is that the “tradition” of marriage would be undermined by giving gays the right to marry. This argument is appealing because it allows its proponents to distance themselves from the real reasons they are against gay marriage — namely that they are against the life style. I would extend that line of thought by saying that utilizing the life style argument goes back to assuming you have a choice in the matter of being gay to begin with. As I’m arguing that you this makes no sense as choice as an issue is a fallacy. I would also like to point out that if anything has led to the decline of marriage as an institution … as a positive tradition … wouldn’t it be heterosexuals themselves? After all, since they are currently the only ones who have ever married, don’t you need to take into account the high divorce rate coupled with the high rate of adultery with straight couples? Also, doesn’t the ease with which you can be granted a divorce from marriage civilly show that it isn’t enshrined in the level of revered tradition that it might once have been?
So if it isn’t really an issue of harming the grand old tradition of marriage as a sacred institution, then what is the general problem with allowing gays to marry? I have to go back to Mr. Abogado who hit the nail firmly on the head … They want to discriminate against people who are gay because they want to make clear to their children and the rest of society that this “lifestyle choice,” or whatever they want to call it, is not okay. But saying “we are protecting tradition” is simply a way to avoid the appearance of outright discrimination. This is it in a nutshell. Allowing gay marriage across the board would, in the eyes of those who despise homosexuality as a “chosen lifestyle”, sanctify that very lifestyle as legitimate. To legitimize homosexuality would thereby negate all of their arguments against gays as welcomed, productive members of society.
Now, why do gays want to marry to begin with? Why is this issue so important to gays as a whole? There certainly is, in some circles, an aspect that looks at gay marriage as simply another battle to be won in equalizing straights and gays in societal terms. Others look at it as a way of sanctifying the love of two people regardless of their genders and sexual orientation. I can agree that these are both legitimate issues of importance. However, for me it wouldn’t be near as important if not for the personal, pragmatic ways that LEGAL marriage can affect a couple. I stress ‘legal’ as I’m looking at marriage less from the traditional, religious ceremonial aspects as from the rights that it grants under current jurisprudence. Personally, I don’t care what word you use but marriage is essentially a contract. Not permitting gays to marry prevents them from entering into a type of legal contract based upon their sexuality. For instance, I know a lesbian couple in their fifties. One partner has a family that accepts her for who she is. The other partner was ostracized by her family nearly two decades ago. They have been a firm, loving, committed couple for over 15 years. Yet … they can not legally cover each other on insurance plans nor have each other serve as standard bearers for such important issues as living wills. If the partner whose family hasn’t had anything to do with her was to have an accident and enter into a coma, the family who ostracized her would have more authority to deal with such issues as life support than her supportive partner. That family would also have total rights to her estate over the partner. There is no other way to put this than to say that it is simply wrong.
Let’s call the marriage issue for what it is — not giving gays the right to, at bare minimum, have full civil (i.e. legal) rights under a contract whether you call it marriage or not is a travesty. Religions may be called different things. In one you may enter a temple, another a church, another a synagogue. Regardless, no matter which you are a member of you have the right to freely associate and express yourself under that religion. Also, each is treated equally under the law with respect to not granting any special rights over the other and granting all equal tax exempt status. Hell, the cult/church of Scientology was easily granted tax free church status. So … call it being married or coupled or (as I prefer) partnered … but the option to enter the same type of legal, binding contract and later divorce from it if you choose to do so should be granted to gays. Period. If not, we will always be second class citizens.
I really, really tried to be succinct. I suppose it didn’t work, did it?
My head hurts..really, it does.
Did no one else think it was fucking hilarious when Shrekie said to Kate Monster, “Sticks and stones Kate Monster.”?
Thanks for your comments so far. Let me start by saying I’ve (finally) responded to Hispanic Pundit’s specific arguments.
What seems clear to me and what I wish I had emphasized at the beginning of this post is that the main dispute between HP and I lies in our definitions of the word marriage. For HP, marriage is
His entire argument depends on that definition. That is, according to HP, the reason we marry, the reason the institution exists, is to produce, raise, and nurture biological offspring.
I would define marriage differently though. For me it is a ritual, contract, and declaration of two people sharing their love for each other in a public (or witnessed) space. Essentially - in my opinion - it is like a notary in that it gives more value to your commitment to each other because it has been witnessed by a third party.
Both definitions are entirely plausible. But the point is, the law shouldn’t limit us to one view or the other.
And it is the law that matters to me. The dictionary much less so. Which is why, I should point out, there really is very little disagreement on this topic between HP and I at all. He says:
It is true that the two definitions of marriage I gave above are different. And so if you would like to call one marriage and the other something else, so be it. But there is obviously a difference between two men or two women declaring their love and commitment to each other than two sisters living together and the law should reflect that. And finally, if we do decide to make a distinction between HP’s definition of marriage and a ritualistic declaration of love and commitment, then it must apply to both homo and heterosexuals. A man and woman should not be considered married until they have children.
Divafina,
Thanks for your comment. You painted a nice portrait of your relationship with your family. I’ve noticed in my travels that much of the world has a silent acceptance of gays whereas in America it seems everyone’s either vocally in favor (like some friends I have who say things like “I love my gay friends”) or vocally opposed. Hopefully one day we can have simple non-silent acceptance. (ps - I to represent Dego)
Abo,
You tied all the strings together nicely. I left a lot unsaid and only implied so thanks for spelling it out.
What institution or ritual isn’t a social creation? Monogamy and marriage are both important to our survival as a species … look at how much violence we see every day because of jelousy. We need some sort of way of knowing our partners won’t leave us or cheat on us and some way to insure them the same.
Looking forward to your post against rights-based arguments. Sometime between law school and the new job might be a good time.
Seyd,
I can tell. Espero algo más de usted señor.
Beckie,
If you call devolving as getting away from our “true” biological selves, I say amen sister.
Alma,
Gracias. One day I want to grow up period.
HP,
It’s easy to make an argument that polygamy causes harm to others. But I can’t see any argument as to why gay marriage would cause harm that heterosexual marriage would not.
Again, it’s very easy to argue that marrying your daughter or sister could/would cause harm.
Finally I have to agree with Abo that your comment was really all over the place. You emphasized that marriage is the “heart of civilization” and so on about a hundred times, but I’d be so much obliged dear chap if you’d stick to the simple arguments. And I promise, hip hop will get the representation it deserves in the next podcast.
Myke,
I’m glad you got carried away. I agree with just about everything you say.
Hello Myke,
Thanks for responding. Your post was well written and contains good arguments. I could see that it was sincere and well mannered, I hope that I have written in the same fashion.
There are some points I disagree with you on and some points I agree with you on, but first, allow me to mention where we agree. For the record, your view of how homosexuals come to be, specifically your first five paragraphs, I completely agree with. In fact, that is exactly what I tried to say in my first couple responses to this blog. Anybody who thinks that a gay person could simply turn off their attraction to members of the same sex is crazy, IMHO. In addition, while I would say that there is some nurture factor involved, I do agree that a lot of it is biological. Whether that means a specific gay gene or not, I don’t know, but it clearly has to do with something inside the person, apart from how they were raised.
So far we agree. But than you start getting all conspiracy theory on me. You write,
I try very hard to stay away from arguments that attribute motive to someone. Because, for one, it is hard to find out what people really think, since their thoughts reside in their mind, outside the reach of everybody else. Second, not all people think the same way, so the people you misjudge are very likely to get offended. Third, it is something that you can’t prove imperically, so why bring it up?
I happen to think that there are several people on the left, especially those in academia, that could give a rats ass about gays. Their true goal in pushing for gay marriage is not out of love and support for gays, but out of a hatred for the institution of marriage. I have specifically mentioned members of the left who have made it clear this is their goal. But, while I strongly believe that, how do you think that would look if I made that one of the claims in my arguments against those who support gay marriage?
In fact, you would think liberals would understand this point very clearly. Aren’t liberals the ones that constantly claim that just because one is against the Iraq war, that does not make one for Saddam? If liberals can understand this point clearly with regard to the Iraq war, why do they always confuse it with regard to gay marriage?
Personally, I think you and Abogado are dead wrong. I am as right wing as you can get, I read several right wing blogs, books, and even have some very right wing friends at work. In addition to this, several of my friends, family and acquaintances (many of them liberals) are against gay marriage. And I would say that a great majority of them, in fact I can’t think of one person that contradicts this, are against gay marriage because of what it would do to marriage, and society in general. In fact, many of them would vehemently argue, just as well as you have above, that gays have no choice in the matter, and are like that from birth. So your description of those opposed to gay marriage does not seem to properly reflect reality, at least in my circle of friends.
With that aside, lets get to the heart of the matter. You write,
Actually, I completely agree with you here. I agree that all of these things above have weakened the institute of marriage. I would even say that ‘no fault’ divorce was the primary culprit. In fact, I even mentioned it in our previous gay marriage discussion.
But I don’t see how you could use this as an argument for gay marriage. In fact, one would think this is an argument against gay marriage. One could say that marriage is already so weakened because of no-fault divorce, and all of the above, that it can’t take another hit without breaking down completely. Or, to put it another way, it would be like arguing with someone who supports a government program that involves a large amount of govenrment waste, and the person responding, in his defense of the program, “Well, there is already a lot of government waste in other programs”. That would not be an argument in favor of that specific program, that would be an argument against that specific government program.
That is not to say that this absolutizes marriage. There clearly could be examples of a situation where a new group should be included into marriage that may have, as its consequence, a further deterioration of marriage. For example, say tomorrow science discovers that two first cousins, while previously thought to have genetically retarded children, could in fact have healthy children at the same level as non-related couples. This would clearly result in a situation where a group of people (first cousins) were excluded from marriage for arbitrary reasons, and therefore, one could argue that they should be now allowed to marry. Clearly this new distinction will cause confusion and one could make the argument that it will weaken marriage, certainly for those on the margin, who may not have a good grasp of what marriage means. But would this be a basis to exclude this new group from marriage? I would say no, and would be on the side of those who wants to give first cousins the opportunity to marry.
Than, why first cousins and not gay couples, you ask? Well, because with first cousins, if in fact we discovered that they could have just as healthy kids as non-related unions, they would satisify the purpose of marriage, and therefore denying them would be an arbitrary ban. This is not the case with gays, society has no obligation to give recognize them as a union. You can say that you love your partner, and I certainly don’t dispute that, but I think we can both agree that passing out love certificates is not a valid obligation of the state.
Now, onto points of agreement. You write,
This is a perfectly legitimate argument. And, in fact, I agree with it. This is precisely why I am for civil unions for gays (while I would stress that civil unions should not be specific to gays, they should be available to unions based on circumstances, not on sexual orientation). It is a tragedy that there are gay couples who do not have visitation rights, or inheritance rights, and other rights (although I’d have some problems with insurance rights) that any loving union should have.
In fact, this is a position you have mentioned previously, and in which I tend to agree with you on.
I know that you see this as a gay issue, and I know that as a gay man, this strikes really close to home. I could understand how this is seen as such an important milestone for gays. They certainly have had the brunt of history for all of their existance.
Yet as important as your point is, and as persuasive as it is to me, it is still second to my desire to protect the institute of marriage. Marriage is not something to be toyed with, especially because it is both, the heart of society, and involves the most defenseless members of society. It is a fact of nature that hetrosexual couples, unlike homosexual couples, can inherently produce children. In other words, they can do everything any other couple can, plus one more thing, they can by nature, produce children. And because of this basic scientific fact, they deserve special status, a status above and beyond all other unions.
Hey Oso,
It’s easy to make an argument that polygamy causes harm to others. But I can’t see any argument as to why gay marriage would cause harm that heterosexual marriage would not…..Again, it’s very easy to argue that marrying your daughter or sister could/would cause harm.
Oh, how so? Please spell it out for me.
I bet they would be just as logical as arguments that say gay marriage causes harm to others (arguing that by legitimatising the homosexual act, you encourage others to perform sex that is inherently more riskier for sexually transmitted diseases, at least with regard to males-clearly liberals can sympathize with this logical causation, since this is the same logical process they go through in accusing the Catholic Church of being responsible for AIDS in Africa, by her ban on condoms).
But I refused to use the gay marriage causes harm to others argument, mainly because I don’t think it is strong enough to prohibit a union from marrying, provided they have other strong government driven arguments to support their cause.
I would define marriage differently though. For me it is a ritual, contract, and declaration of two people sharing their love for each other in a public (or witnessed) space. Essentially - in my opinion - it is like a notary in that it gives more value to your commitment to each other because it has been witnessed by a third party.
If you define marriage like this, than why not argue for removing marriage from government in the first place, instead of adding more people to the definition? I am assuming that you, as a card carrying liberal, are vehemently against religion mixed with government. I mean you wouldn’t find a Christian argument persuasive that states that gays should not be allowed to marry because their faith disapproves of it. If you wouldn’t like a Christian to argue in that fashion, why support it with regard to religious issues you agree with? Should the government be involved in giving out love certificates? I would say that love, fundamentally, is a religious issue. Next thing you know, liberals will start arguing for government to recognize other purely religious bonds, bonds like, friendship bonds, ‘best friends for life’ declarations, and boyfriend/girlfriend ceremonies. If one is a valid government activity, I see no reason for the government not to be involved in the others.
It is true that the two definitions of marriage I gave above are different. And so if you would like to call one marriage and the other something else, so be it.
Ahhh, the civil union agreement. Like I said above, I have no qualms with civil unions (again, given the restrictions above).
Finally I have to agree with Abo that your comment was really all over the place. You emphasized that marriage is the “heart of civilization” and so on about a hundred times, but I’d be so much obliged dear chap if you’d stick to the simple arguments.
Damn, and here I thought my response above directly answered several different peoples responses. But here, since my response is causing so much confusion, please spell out where you think I went off on tangent (repeating myself does not count as ‘going all over the place’), and I will gladly show you where I was addressing what someone specifically said.
As far as your other comments, I will address those and some of the ones I left out here, on the first gay marriage post, where you responded to me in more detail.
HP – I’m sorry that you are the only one here to address responses to. If the news media tells us anything it is that you, and the people you know, do not represent the type of people who are behind the anti-gay crusade that is currently occurring in America. I am trying to do you the favor of addressing your points and not ascribing the arguments of your “side” to you. You are obviously much more level headed and honest than the people that appear on television and espouse hateful rhetoric on a daily basis. However, you don’t seem to be addressing the points that Oso, Myke and I have consistently brought up as counters to your arguments – which btw are starting to look more and more like subjective opinions. On that note, I will comment on the post that responded to mine:
I can honestly say I have no idea what the hell you are trying to say here. To me it sounds exactly like what Ron Cruz said in the conclusion of my last post. And if that is the case then my response remains exactly the same. What exactly do you mean that “objectivity is the only thing that a culture understands?” Again, the only thing I can think of are brightline rules that simply do not exist in reality. Nothing is easy and nothing is clear, which you seem to intimate by saying that “we all want our next generation children to grow up as healthy as possible.” Besides the implication that gay couples would raise less healthy children, an implications which I clearly addressed and you did not refute, I see absolutely no point in the statement of an obvious truism.
Again, the “objectivity of marriage” is a meaningless concept unless you explain it, and you have not explained why “protecting the institution of marriage” is a worthy goal if it denies a large segment of our population legal and moral equality. So your point is moot outside of some evidence that you do not possess.
I don’t care how or why people are or become gay. It has no baring on my argument, nor did I ever address it, so I think you must be referring to someone else here. Probably Oso, because he asked, so I’ll leave any response to him. Like I said, it doesn’t and shouldn’t matter.
So is this all about the definition of civil union? Because if that is the case then we’re on the same page. I am not gay. I don’t really care what name you want to give to a unification of people, recognized by society as legitimate, that comes with the corresponding legal benefits. Myke and other gays may care. I will back them up because I think they deserve as much, but that is only my opinion; my only point is in regard to social equality. I could care less what you call it, I just don’t want to live in a country that treats a large group of people as second-class citizens. But then you go off the deep end of logic. Straight off the Niagra Falls of non-sequiturs:
It about the children!! Who will save the children!! Ok, I’m glad your heart is in the right place. You care about kids. Great. That proves a grand total of nothing. Then you follow with this:
Where did you establish that people are harmed by gay marriage? You apparently linked to some site that says something about a “potential risk” that people will be harmed. I could care less about reading the article because it means absolutely nothing to my points which you have heretofore failed to even address. So now you say the primary motivating factor for your denial of a large segment of society the basic privileges that we give to everyone else is the protection of children. Even assuming that there was a potential risk (which I think would be very difficult, if not impossible to prove – see my last post) you have MUCH more explaining to do. Even with your massive assumption that children may be put at “risk,” this is not necessarily proof that we should deny gays the right to marry. Many things in society put people (and children) at risk and we accept them as consequences of life and human choice. What, HP, doesn’t put children at risk? Keep in mind I am, for argument sake, accepting your assumption. Violent movies, your (and mine) beloved hiphop, cigarettes, beer, cars, pollution, poverty, lack of healthcare etc. etc. etc. But somehow your main concern is gay marriage? How amazing and coincidental that anti-gay corresponds with your politics and religion. What is more of a risk to children: having them raised in a loving, healthy gay family, or having them raised in a family that cannot provide healthcare, or is neither healthy nor loving – which I might add seems to be a very large proportion of heterosexual families? You have established nothing…and this is the “primary motivating factor” of your argument?
Again, I specifically said I was not talking about “civil rights”, however, I think you would still lose the argument were I to try. But I will leave that to someone else who wants to address the Constitutional factors at issue here, because they are substantial and relevant.
[omitted long discussion of civil rights clearly not addressed to me.]
This is absolutely circular. You don’t have the right to marry a person of your same sex because we don’t give you the right to marry individuals of the same sex? This is the exact same thing as saying in 1859, “what do you mean blacks are not equal to me? if I were black I wouldn’t be free either.” It has absolutely no logical or moral weight. This is just plain insulting to everyone’s intelligence.
You choose to frame it that way, fine. But you have proved zip in this or an other post. The only thing that you have said that is coherent is this: “marriage” means man and woman, and “society has no obligation to grant [gays the right to marry]. These are truisms as far as I am concerned. And my arguments, and everyone else’s, stand untouched by what you have said.
Rereading what I have said there is an obvious tone of frustration. This is completely intended. It is frustrating reading comments by Myke and Oso and Beckie and the countless others in other posts that go ignored just so that you can reiterate your already clear position. I don’t think anyone is mis-interpreting what you are saying, I think you are mis-interpreting the implications and assumptions of your arguments. It is not fair that you are the only conservative here to represent your side HP, and I admire your initiative in tirelessly “defending” your points, but you cannot just repeat what you say over and over again and think that it makes it true.
Post script: I wrote this before HP’s last response (which I have yet to read). If it changes anything then I will go back and address that separately.
Great stuff Abogado, I will respond tomorrow. I am pooped.
Oso, I’m so sorry. I didn’t do my readings on queer theory. I can’t even tell you what queer theory is. I pretended to work on my papers all weekend (I didn’t) rather than take some time to prepare for class.
Part of me thinks that the only reason you put up posts like this and provoke the token Mexican conservative from Compton — who shall remain nameless — is because it’s great to increase your comments. And, you get Abogado to come out of his law school hole and to post, or at least comment to posts.
Hey Abogado,
First, thanks for responding to what I had to say. I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again, I have a very difficult time with the written, and there are several instances where the point I tried to make is not the same point that was understood by others. Clearly, by looking over your response, there were several instances of that here, and I will try to do better this time.
I see where the confusion was. As of late, I have dialogued so much with conservative/libertarians that I have forgotten that the ‘laws and government programs affect culture’ rule is not so clearly accepted in liberal circles as it is in libertarian/conservative circles. I will try to explain it as best I can, but please, do read this libertarian explanation on it, it is so good, that frankly, it, along with all the other stuff I have read on the topic, converted me to the side of the conservatives, on this specific aspect of the gay marriage debate at least.
Let’s say that as a child, you had a father who told you not to steal, but he stole himself. Clearly, you would understand the value of not-stealing much differently than a child who grew up with a father who taught him not to steal but who also refused to steal himself. This is the same thing with laws, people, especially children; absorb the legal environment around them. In other words, we as children soak up the environment we are raised in, and if we can’t find some logical consistency with certain moral claims, we discard them. If you create marriage that is not tied to children, you teach the next generation that having children and being married are not in anyway related. Sure, you can tell them that you should be married to have children, and I’m sure many children that grow up with very attentive parents will still develop those beliefs. But the kids, as they say in economics, on the margin will not so easily pick that up. They will have a hard time understanding that marriage is where you have children, specifically when you now have situations of allowing marriage that is inherently contradictory to producing children.
Sure, you can say that the current situation marriage is in already has some separation between children and marriage. I completely agree, but allowing gay marriage will completely severe that link, much more so than anything currently done to marriage.
So in essence, this break from children will teach the next generation of children, specifically those on the margin, that marriage has nothing to do with children. And the danger in that is that you will create, as they say in electronics, a positive feed back of more kids having kids outside of wedlock, which in turn creates more of an acceptable environment for that, which in turn creates more kids out of wedlock on and on and on…and in each stage more and more children are growing up in a less healthy environment than they could have.
I think that this response directly addresses the bulk of your responses, so I will skip over where you mention the same thing. Please, remember, especially if this response did not satisfy you, that I am not very good at explaining the cultural connection to laws, or social programs. Libertarians, and many others, are far better at explaining it than I am. So please read the link I linked to above.
As an aside, for the record, nowhere in my response did I address the topic of whether gays would make good parents or not, I was specifically here referring to what this would do to unions that produce children, namely, male female unions.
Great response!! In fact, I completely agree with you, this is precisely why I left out my views on this until now. I was ‘forced’ to explain them here because Oso practically made his whole rebuttal to me on this one issue alone.
But your right, this response was directed at Oso, but also to Divafina’s comment above.
Like I mentioned above, I am fine with civil unions.
As far as my primary reason to be against gay marriage (which is, btw, very different than ones primary ‘motivation‘ to be against gay marriage), it is as simple as this; I see no logical reason to. I agree with you that there are several things that put children at risk, and there are several things that should be allowed even if they put children at risk. But the reason to allow those things should outweigh the costs. As I’ve said before, the only reason that proponents of gay marriage give for allowing gays to marry, is because they love each other. While I don’t doubt this to be true, love is not a valid reason to have the government involved in ones lives. People make best friend declarations all the time, should the government recognize those as well?
In other words, the government should only get involved in something when it has a vested interest in it. Why does the government give tax breaks to single parents? Because the government has a vested interest in the children. Why does the government give tax breaks, say, to corporations that reduce air pollution? Because, the government has a vested interest in reducing air pollution. Why does the government get involved with law breakers? Because, the government has a vested interest in having a law abiding society. Etc… You get the idea. But what, pray tell, is the vested interest of the government in public declarations of two homosexual people?
I already gave you the vested interest with regard to current marriage, namely, to encourage the proper upbringing of children. You may not like it, you may think it is an invalid vested interest (as some may also say to my example above, of giving tax breaks to corporations that reduce air pollution), shoot, you may even disagree with it. But you can’t deny that there is a vested interest. This is not the case with the public declaration of gay unions.
To put this another way, if you don’t like the historical vested interest of marriage, you can provide another one that does include gays, and I am completely open to that, but to give a reason that ‘they love each other’ is more of a reason to remove marriage completely from the government than it is a reason to include more unions.
Actually, you did make the civil rights comparison. You wrote,
It’s pretty hard to make a closer civil rights comparison than to refer to blacks in the 1800’s.
But please, do respond to my civil rights comparisons. I don’t believe that homosexual marriage is anything like civil rights, and if you can show me otherwise, I would be very interested to hear what you have to say. Remember, I am not arguing for you to show me how our current laws equate the two (for I am sure my boy Scalia would disagree with whether those laws should have been considered constitutional). I am asking you for the justification behind those laws. I’m sure we can agree that there are laws on the books that make absolutely no logical sense, yet by the mere fact that they are laws wouldn’t make the laws just. For example, the laws on the books currently make marijuana illegal, while making cigarettes legal. Clearly, by having that law on the books that does not put marijuana on a different level than cigarettes. One would have to get into the justification behind it (I am for all drug legalization, btw). So please, if you see homosexual marriage equal to civil right laws, please elaborate, I’m all ears.
This is absolutely circular. You don’t have the right to marry a person of your same sex because we don’t give you the right to marry individuals of the same sex?
No it’s not, it would have been circular had I said that gays should not be allowed to marry someone of the same sex because we don’t allow them to marry someone of the same sex. That is not what I said. I was here referring to rights, restrictions and limitations, not reasons why they should not be allowed to marry members of the same sex.
Everybody, whether heterosexual, old, young, male, female, or homosexual, has the same restrictions on whom to marry as homosexuals do. I am not allowed to marry someone of the same sex, neither is my sister, neither is my grandma, and neither is my nephew. In other words, we all, as Americans, have the exact same rights with regard to marriage. We all have the exact same freedom to marry the same category of people. We all have the right to marry any person of the opposite sex of my choice who is not already married and who is distant from me in terms of kinship; homosexuals have that very same right.
What homosexuals want, is not to be treated like all other Americans, they want to be given a special privilege, a privilege that gives them, as a unique group, special rights. They want to be allowed to also marry members of the same sex. Again, it would be like polygamous partners seeking extra rights to marry more than one wife…This is not ‘equal’ rights, this is special rights that tailors to their specific group.
I apologize that I have frustrated you, and anybody else I have frustrated, please understand that this is not my intention. I walk away from every response thinking that I did fully respond to every point the person made (maybe not to their satisfaction, but certainly addressed it), so if you get the impression that something was ignored, please spell it out for me. Clearly, the ESL classes I took as a child had a much more negative effect on my reading/writing skills than I had originally thought. I am a math person by experience, I have a very difficult time with the written/read, so I can use all the help I can get.
Token Mexican Conservative…LOL. I love your choice in words, I couldn’t have used a better word to describe your point than ‘token’.
I love the blog!
Sheesh, can anyone here make a point without typing 5 paragraphs. Lawyers!
I seem to have been able to raise 3 kids who are not threatened by people of the same sex getting married. This gives me hope. I do not agree marriage is only there for the procreation of children. You do not need to be married to have children, that is a personal choice. A man putting his pee pee in a woman’s vagina is for making babies, if you choose to follow societies rules for making it legal so be it. The baby doesn’t stop coming out of the womb because there isn’t a marriage contract, mother nature still gets her way.
A portion of the arguement seems to be, “Well we want to keep our explanations to our children simple.” LAZINESS. Nothing in life that involves human sexuality is simple.
Polygamy, and marrying your sister. Ok. If it is between two CONSENTING adults, I could care less if someone has two or three husbands or wives. Why you would want more than one husband is beyond me, I can barely tolerate the one I got. Two would send me to an early grave. Marrying your sister? Honestly, I wouldn’t care. Your babies might have a tail, but hey it makes life interesting.