We still have people going around and shitting on couples’ love for each other by telling them that it’s not a “real” marriage and it’s an “insult” to “real” marriage and if they don’t like it, they can leave the country.
And when you ask them why, in threads such as this one, they bring up irrelevant non-arguments about slippery-slopes and religious connotations, or even better, say “I don’t care to debate it. That’s what I believe.” And we’re supposed to believe that they’re the ones under attack.
Glib answers aside, here’s something that I understand (don’t accept it one whit, but I understand it):
Marriage is defined legally in most places in this country as being the legal union of one man and one woman. That’s exclusive language. It’s an exclusive bond - nobody else can claim to be married to someone once that person is already hitched, and a guy can’t go in the news saying he’s actually married to, say, Single Man Running For Office in a Conservative Place. That sort of thing would get no legitimacy. So if the exclusivity of marriage is threatened/changed, that aspect of it harms those marriage made back when the rules were more exclusive.
I see this argument carrying as much weight as those who argued for an asterisk being placed by Roger Maris’ 61-homer season: the rules have changed, and so has the record. Are you gonna put an asterisk by every marriage, straight or otherwise, that goes on the books after gay marriage is allowed? We don’t still talk, as if it were a serious point of contention, about the 8-game difference between Ruth’s 60 season (or his 59 season, or his 54 season) and Bonds’ 73, McGwire’s 70, Sosa’s 60+ seasons, Maris’ 61, etc.
For that matter, when folks discuss Ruth’s career they don’t give much (some, but not much) lip service to the fact that at the beginning of the century one man had the most homers in one year and they were all inside the park (I think, anyway). One year the max anyone hit was 9.
It was a lot harder back then, just as it sometimes used to be harder (say, in Jamestown, VA, around the beginning of the 18th century) to find a wife. Do those marriages get bolded in the books now because it’s easier to find a spouse?
But how exactly? There are two types of legitimacy: legal and social. The legal legitimacy is determined by law, and law can be changed without necessarily being retroactive. Social legitimacy can also be changed, but it’s much harder to change everyone’s mind than changing a law, as it involves more people more directly than a law, thus more social inertia. So, legally, gay marriage has been legitimate even though many don’t believe it’s legitimate. I can see where people would judge a law legitimate or not based on whether or not it reflects their values. But, how does changing legal harm what used to be legitimate?
I’ve had similar arguments with older ham radio operators. They built their own tube radios; they learned morse code and loved it. Amateur radios made today are CPU controlled, and there’s no way I could ever build one myself and have it do what I want it to. I don’t care for morse code, but have operated other digital modes and led emergency weather communications nets. But there are still hams out there who think I’m not a good operator, or only half way there because I haven’t done what they did a long time ago. I’ve never heard an adequate explanation why.
Believe it or not, the Supreme Court of the US waited until the 1960’s to rule that states could not outlaw marriage between folks of different races. My wife and I didn’t get married until 1979. We’re both white, and we have never thought for a minute that inter-racial marriage would taint our marriage. When the courts eventually rule that same-sex couples can join the club, that won’t harm our marriage, either. Bigotry is bigotry, and it doesn’t matter if you hate niggers or faggots. It’s wrong.
(Okaaaay, so if this isn’t GD material, hopefully my response won’t be either. If it is, someone just whack me with the mod stick.)
I read the thread title and was going to jump in and give my $.02, but then I read a bunch of posts like this one. Presuming to judge the way I think and, er, pidgeon-hole people based on a socio-political preference of mine, to imply that my relationship with my wife is diminished because of my stance, to call my marriage shallow, to tag me as immature, to go so far as to lump me in with the “downright mean” because of it… well, that’s pretty rude and almost convinced me to stay out of this discussion for fear that it’d be extremely one-sided.
:dubious:
It’ll probably stay one-sided, and there’ll still be people here calling me a shallow, diminished, underdeveloped doofus because of my take on marriage, but so be it. I’m just saying.
And I know that the instant I bring in the religion card, I’m gonna be automagically marked as a fundie. By the same people who insist my worldview is narrow and petty.
I don’t care if there’s always been homosexuality. This argument doesn’t stand up when you change the last word. There’s always been incest too, and jaywalking, and cheap advertising gimmicks. (To cover a wide spectrum of behavior which may or may not be socially acceptable.) To say it’s always been there so it must be okay sounds, I dunno, a little lazy.
I also don’t care if my stance appears ignorant. Unless you can provide me with a good argument as to why homosexual marriages can provide good to society (and note that I’m not saying it can’t) then your message tends to get bogged down with insults.
Anywho.
For the record, and for my response to the OP, I’m all for officially recognized civil unions of homosexual couples for purposes of insurance and power of attorney and childrearing and such. I guess I don’t even care if you call that “marriage”. I see no difference between these unions and many hetersexual marriages I know. If you find someone you can spend a lifetime with, and make the world a better place with, then hey, who am I to stop you?
But I am opposed to anyone in such a union to compare it to the marriage I have with my wife. From a spiritual standpoint, that is from the point of view of the religion which I personally subscribe to, the symbolic union of my wife and myself MEANS SOMETHING TO ME that is far more profound than the legal union.
But religion is really only half of it. From a biological standpoint, I have chosen my lifelong mate, and will produce children as we see fit, in order to further our legacy, etc. I don’t get how biology gets thrown out the window here. Even if a gay couple’s deep-seated religious/moral principles put the spiritual value of their union at the same level as mine (and please note that I’m not saying they don’t), they still have this issue with not being able to produce viable offspring together.
Perhaps if someone could explain the “marriage doesn’t involve kids” thing to me - or point me to some GD threads (or any discussion anywhere) that does so in a civil manner - I’ll grant that my point of view could be changed.
Tangentally, I agree with the posts that called out the rockstar marriages for the shams that they are. I also agree that they may be more damaging to the institution of marriage in every way.
Dang. Such a rambling rant. Sorry if I went off-topic, but I wanted to answer the OP with my own opinion. If I’ve offended anyone with this, sorry, not my intent, but man some of those posts up there were rude.
Aaaaaand I never actually responded to the OP. Looking back on it, mangeorge is asking about the effect homosexual unions may have on rights of traditionally-married couples, not my feelings on same-sex marriage.
So I jumped in before I really took the time to read the OP. Well, preview post won’t help me there.
I don’t think that my rights would be abridged by allowing same-sex marriage, so from that standpoint I don’t oppose it.
For the record, and especially after reading this post, I really do feel for those couples in California. It seems kind of petty of the Superior Court, and incredibly criminal of the mayor in the first place.
Seriously, it’s a shame that you had to feel like you needed so many qualifiers. The whole point of threads like this is to get dissenting opinions out there in the open so they can get discussed. This is an issue that’s important to a lot of people, and so often it just comes down to a one-sided argument, because people are afraid that they’re going to get shouted down. And I can argue against someone who’s unwilling to argue back. There’s no fighting against a vague, unspoken, unarticulated dread of same-sex marriage. And anyone who says, “This is how I feel and I don’t want to debate it because you’ll all just disagree with me” is just being closed-minded and cowardly.
Yeah, there are some people who will shout you down just for disagreeing with them. And yeah, I will shout you down if you say something that shows a complete lack of respect for other people. But as long as anyone says something that shows thought and shows that they’re not automatically dismissing me, I’ll not only listen, but I’ll welcome it.
And offer counter-opinions:
No, you’re not a “fundie” as soon as you mention religion – anyone who says otherwise is himself being narrow-minded and petty. Anyone who denies or tries to diminish the importance of faith and religion is being narrow-minded and petty. But, when you take your own religious beliefs and try to make them apply to those who don’t share your religious beliefs, that’s wrong, and it has no place in law.
I’ve never heard anyone say, “it’s always been there so it must be okay.” But I have heard people say that marriage is an ancient and cherished institution, and now all of a sudden, gays are trying to crash the party. The whole point is that saying “I’m old-fashioned, and this is the way it’s always been” is not a valid argument against same-sex marriage. Some people have always been gay.
Well, it’s unfair to put the burden on supporters of same-sex marriage to prove why they should be allowed to marry. Why isn’t the burden of proof on those who are trying to stop same-sex marriage, to prove why gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry?
So you want a good argument as to why homosexual marriages can provide good to society? What do you think are the reasons heterosexual marriages are good for society? Take your answer to that, and there you have it.
And this is the part I don’t get. Do you believe that homosexual couples don’t also want to have a profound symbolic union that is more meaningful than the legal union? Why is same-sex marriage such a big issue, if they don’t? No, a civil union cannot be compared to the marriage you have with your wife. That’s the whole problem. Two people of the same sex can do everything, feel every emotion, show each other the same devotion and commitment, that you have shown for your wife, go through the same ceremony (remember that there are religious congregations that will perform SSM), and society and the government still refuses to call them “married.”
Civil unions aren’t enough for many people – they provide the same basic level of rights as a marriage but they’re not awarded the same symbolic respect as a “marriage.” Which leads back to the question of this thread: why are you and your wife entitled to this level of respect, where my husband and I would not be? Why would people think of it as an “insult” for me to call him my husband?
And that’s the only difference I can see between a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual one – the homosexuals can’t produce offspring together. However, one of the members could father or carry a child, and the child could be raised by the couple. Or the couple could adopt. If that’s the case, the question comes down to whether the best and only advantage of marriage is producing children, or bringing children up in a healthy, stable, and loving environment.
If it’s all about procreation, then where are the amendments and propositions banning marriage for infertile heterosexual couples? Or heterosexual couples who choose to remain childless? Does a heterosexual couple who chooses not to have children somehow insult the validity of your own marriage?
Okay. I’ll take a whack at it.
First, it in no way deminishes the spiritual link you have with your wife. Or, it shouldn’t. That’s a bond between you and her…how can the link that two men (or women) share with each other lessen that? All it does is enhance the bond between them, cement it and allow it to be recognized socially. These people have committed themselves to each other. How is their commitment any less valid than yours?
Religion: Fine. This is your religion. And, I respect that. But, by the same token, you have to respect other people’s right to disagree with that religion. That’s why that specific amendment is in place. Whether this goes against your religious teachings is semantically null. Church and state. Separate. For many reasons. No two religions follow the exact same paths, and you cannot impose your religious views on someone else.
I don’t think you’re shallow at all. And I don’t think you’re a fundie. But I do think you’re being judgemental of something you don’t understand, either intentionally or unintentionally. As for my saying “homosexuality has always existed,” I pointed that out to refute the fallacy of “Homosexuality isn’t natural.” Anything that exists in nature is natural. Say it with me. BEING GAY IS NOT A CHOICE.
As for raising children: Several of those gay couples mentioned in the articles I linked have raised families. So they adopted. How is that any different from a married heterosexual couple unable to conceive? Parenting instincts are biological. Gay people feel those instincts just like everyone else. And, there are many married couples who choose not to have children. Does that make thier marriages any less valid? Of course not.
I tell you now: There is no reason to deny these people the right to marry. None.
Oh, and as for why I’m posting all this here as opposed to in Great Debates or the Pit thread…
I’m more interested in the opinions of the people here than I am what the law says. Don’t get me wrong; I think understanding the laws regarding this subject are important. We have to understand them in order to change them. But currently, I’m more interested in why people believe or do not believe gays & lesbians should be “allowed” ( :rolleyes: sorry, Sol Grundy, I can’t think of any other phrase, and it grates on me as much as it does you) the right to marry.
Maureen, I can really appreciate that. I think that’s the nicest way anyone’s ever called me judgemental! I can’t deny it. Sometimes I put the “mental” in judgemental. I have no defense for that position, except possibly giving you the raspberry. But that line of discussion can only lead to quoting the script from Spaceballs, and that can only lead to quoting Princess Bride and Ghostbusters, and mass hysteria. So yeah, it’s best I not use the raspberry defense.
I think this is where I get all confused. This is a very polarized issue. I’ve never really seen any evidence from a disinterested third party to back this up. I mean, all the stuff I’ve seen on this indicate that gays and straights are pretty much built the same way, have the same neurochemistry, etc. I find it hard to accept that being gay is not a choice. It just sounds, well, I don’t know. How is it not a choice? At what point is someone compelled against their will to be gay?
Er, at what point will the mods lock this thread and kick us into GD? I’ve been looking, but I can’t really find a thread there that I want to jump into…
Gah!
This is not a debate. This is a soul-searching inquiry into why some people feel the way they do. We are not looking for arguement, we are looking for explanation.
I truly do not understand why people, like The Dun King, feel somehow lessened by gay folks sharing in the validation of marriage. And he seems to be genuinly interested in how and why people like me don’t feel that way.
Some people are scared away by debate.
Dang!
Not to monopolize the thread, but: Can I count myself as a disinterested first party? As in, I don’t particularly care when, where, or how I got the gay, I’m just trying to find out now what I can do to keep from dying alone? I spent over a decade trying to figure out why and how it happened and how I could “cure” myself of it, and finally realized the only way I could function would be to just accept it.
I’m really not trying to be belligerent. I think it’s fine to be curious about whether or not homosexuality is caused by biology, sociology, or a combination of both (personally, I think it’s mostly sociology, but have absolutely no facts to back that up with). But regardless of the outcome, it’s not relevant as an argument for or against same-sex marriage.
Is the only reason not to ban same-sex marriage because gay people can’t help being gay? I’m a white man (astoundingly white); if I want to marry a black woman, is the only reason that’s okay because she can’t help being black? If I want to marry a man, he can’t help being a man, and neither can I. Does that make it okay?
Again, I’m not arguing, just asking for genuine opinions as to what could possibly be the alternative for gay people. Is the belief that gay people could choose to love someone of the opposite sex if they tried hard enough?
Well, this tangent looks like it’s at an impasse. I doubt either of us will budge on this without reaching consensus elsewhere.
Well, you’re right, and I must concede that point. But like I said earlier in this thread, I don’t feel that my marriage or my rights would be threatened by a law allowing gay marriage.
I, personally, would not be insulted by you calling your mate your husband. I know plenty who would, and I don’t know why they would, but there they are.
But then - and please please please don’t take this the wrong way - I’m pretty cynical. A huge majority of the gay men I’ve known embraced a lifestyle that is waaaay counter to that which you describe. My attitudes towards your relationship with your husband is automatically going to be tainted by that, until I see or hear otherwise (as I have in this thread.) I really honestly seriously try to not let this affect my judgement, but it’s there.
(Is there a word for this attribute in me? Surely I’m not a closet bigot?)
It’s odd that, without exception, all the gay women I’ve known have been hard-core family types. From what I’ve seen (and granted that I’ve seen quite a lot more lesbian couples than gay couples), it’s beyond stereotype, it’s like an axiom.
I don’t see the distinction between a gay marriage, and a kid-free het marriage. On the other hand, the law does consider kid-free het marriages as different from kid-loaded het marriages. Just witness any divorce where kids are involved. The amount of time spent in court is usually an order of magnitude longer. And then there’s the taxes!
But for the record, I feel that these legal attributes should be applied to gay couples with kids, not just straight couples. If you put in the time and love to raise the kids, you should be recognized for that.
I dunno. You and Maureen have reviewed some points that I’m not quite able to reconcile my feelings with. I’ve been beating my head against this for a couple of years now, and I still haven’t gotten very far.
I don’t feel threatened by gay marriage, but at the same time, I don’t quite feel right about it either. I certainly don’t think we should have a constitutional amendment to ban it.
Dude, mangeorge, I’m really very sorry about the thread hijack. I didn’t want this to go into GD either. I could claim it was a newbie mistake, but I’ve lurked here way too long to use that excuse. I really don’t know what else to say.
Ah, the years Before the Lively Ball! All records since 1910 are, of course, nonsensical since any boob can hit modern balls out of the park while only Real Men (gay or straight) can make in the park homers.
God, I got sick of announcers saying, “But that was Before the Lively Ball.”
sigh. I SO wish you hadn’t done that, Czarcasm. But, I understand why you did.
Dun King, let me just say, I’m not gay. What I’m putting forth is purely from what I’ve seen my sister in law (who IS gay) and her friends go through. And why anyone would willingly CHOOSE to put themselves through that is beyond me. Setting aside finding a partner, which is difficult no matter who you are, even more so when the field is narrowed by 80%, there are issues like:
Coming out. I sat with her the night she decided to tell her parents. She went through about 50 different emotions in a half hour, ranging the gammut from anger to relief to resentment to fear and all the way back to joy, because she’d finally found the woman she wanted to be with for the rest of her life. They’re still together, btw. That was going on 12 years ago. (Parents were about the way we’d expected. Mom did just fine, dad took a while, but eventually came around)
People lose family members over this. I can’t even imagine not being able to call my mom any more because she’d hang up on me when she heard my voice. Or my brother, or sister, or anyone else in my family. That pain has to be awful.
Being treated like a blight on society. The way people change their attitudes toward a person when they find out that person is gay is unbelievable. There is no other word for it. I’ve seen junkies garner more compassion.
Being told that, no matter what you do, no matter how respectable or productive a member of society you happen to be, you will never, EVER be allowed the same rights as every other citizen of this country (and, while we’re at it, most others).
Let me ask you a question. Have you always known you were straight? Is there any possibility you could ever change your mind and become gay? If you think that a person’s sexuality is a choice, then you have to accept it’s possible to choose to be heterosexual.
I’m pretty sure you’re shaking your head violently right now, and I don’t expect you to agree. Just to see it from the other side. Even for a minute. And, if we’ve caused you to question some of these arguments, that can only be viewed as progress.
I don’t think Sol Grundy expects everyone to change their opinions over night. But, just as with the civil rights movement, once the laws were changed, perceptions started to change. The law is the first step, here. It HAS to be changed in order for social mores and beliefs to start to change.
I brought up the religion card, someone had to bring in the race card. You know, for balance.
I can see why a lot of people compare this issue with the civil rights movement, but I don’t see it that way.
In my POV, it’s ludicrous to suggest that a couple can’t marry because their skin tones don’t match. I think most everyone will agree with this, and those who disagree likely have some serious social issues.
But gay marriage is different. Biologically. I mean, for me, biological reproduction is a central aspect of marriage, in addition to providing care and being loving parents. And fidelity.
Okay, the three central aspects of marriage are: one, biological reproduction; two, providing care; three, being loving parents…and never saying “I don’t” after you say “I do.” And a fanatical devotion to the pope…and lovely red robes…oh bugger.
At this point it gets all swirly and I just want to talk about Legos instead.
Long story short, for me the discussion always comes back to biology. But I have a feeling it’s more than that, but I can’t quite pinpoint it.
Ya know, I’ve come to believe that, in some cosmic sense, there really is some perfect someone out there for everyone. (I suspect this may make my kids hate me when they become old enough to date.) It’s like all those cheesy Meg Ryan flicks. I think that when you meet that someone, you don’t have a choice. You love that someone because, well, there’s no room for any other feeling. (Incidentally, I felt this after I met my future wife, we were inseparable, we dated steadily for five years then we were married and we’ve just celebrated our 7th anniversary, and I felt that feeling again on a different level when my daughter was born. Cosmic, I tell you.) As to whether some people have a same-sex someone where others have a other-sex someone, I can’t say.
This coming from the same guy who questions whether gays really have a choice in being gay. :smack:
It’s probably a good thing they don’t let me set policy.
I can’t deny it. Sometimes I put the “mental” in judgemental. I have no defense for that position, except possibly giving you the raspberry. But that line of discussion can only lead to quoting the script from Spaceballs, and that can only lead to quoting Princess Bride and Ghostbusters, and mass hysteria. So yeah, it’s best I not use the raspberry defense.