posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 11:27 PM
I’m new here and just wanted to throw in my two cents.
I guess I should start by saying that I’m entirely in favor of gay marriage as a principle (though I discourage it as a practice, but that’s
mainly for reasons surrounding heteronormativity and good queer/bad queer images…I’ll save all of that for another thread). Back to the principle
of gay marriage…
I’m tired of pro gay marriage proponents bringing up the biological argument. You can’t win that one, because there seems to be proofs going
either way. And besides, it’s a moot point. A basic cornerstone of human rights (and all western liberal democracies) is that we don’t
discriminate on account of…lets say…race or religion. Now, as far as I can tell, race is a genetically inherited condition, and religion is a
choice. No one is born and inherently Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim…whatever, they make a choice to practice that religion and they can’t be
discriminated on the grounds of their choices. Choices and biological characteristics are both protected. So it doesn’t really matter if someone is
gay because they were born that way or because they chose it, they shouldn’t be discriminated against either way.
The nature thing is equally ridiculous. Who cares if there are gay penguins? Or lesbian seagulls? We’re not seagulls, we’re not penguins. Stop
bringing it up. I think you guys have done a fine job already in showing that natural doesn’t always mean right, (both the proponents and the
opponents) so I’ll leave that one.
As for the religion thing. If we are going to protect freedom of religion, then we are also protecting freedom from religion. The religious history of
a nation doesn’t really mean anything to a person who doesn’t share that religion. What I’m trying to say is whether or not America was founded
on Judeo-Christian beliefs doesn’t mean that Judeo-Christian beliefs have precedent over other ones. Even in the broadest sense, whether or not god
believes homosexuality is an abomination is also moot if we are working in the public sphere. If you think it’s an abomination then great, run with
it, that’s your prerogative, who am I to tell you what to believe? But, if I have to accept your belief, then you can’t use that as an argument
against my beliefs. We have to balance these things out.
Now, the secular arguments against gay marriage. What are they again? Ummm….We have the slippery slope one. That if gays get married then people
will start marrying nineteen people, children and pigeons and socks. Well, Slippery slope arguments are always in a precarious position because they
imply causality. That is, a slippery slope argument against gay marriage that says it will lead to polygamous marriages implies that the two are
somehow causal. X causes Y. Let’s stop here. Most polygamous relationships are between a man and multiple woman (fact is, I’ve never heard of a
gay polygamous union, I might be wrong…if so let me know), now, couldn’t we say that allowing heterosexual marriage was the precedent that set up
polygamy? I can’t see how gay marriage would cause a man to marry a bunch of woman. Now. If we can recognize the absurdity of saying that
heterosexual marriage leads to polygamy, we should be able to do the same for gay marriage. The thing is, heterosexists (not homophobes, there’s a
difference) seem to lump polygamy, pedophilia, and bestiality together simply because they think they are all abhorrent. That because they are all
abnormal, (when compared to heterosexual relationships…) then one must clearly lead to the other. Well, I don’t know if I have to say this again,
but the loving, committed relationship between two adults of the same gender (and maybe sex too) isn’t the same as a man having sex with his dog.
It’s different. If you can’t see that, then I can’t change your mind.
Someone on here said that gays were pushing there agenda on the majority. That every culture has the right to self determination, and that if gay
marriage was allowed, it would be an affront to this determination. Oh and something about ‘united we stand’…and how gays are being the
fractious ones in this situation. To start then, I guess that I just have one question: if gays are trying to enter into the same institution as you,
how are they being fractious? The only people pushing for difference isn’t the gays and lesbians, it’s the people who are keeping them separate.
To be truly, ‘united’, wouldn’t that imply granting them access to the same institutions? Now, as for the majority being asked to change for the
minority, I would again point out that it is the minority that is hoping to change. They want to change their relationships so they look more like
yours, they want to integrate themselves into your society. You literally have nothing to lose in this equation. You keep your marriage, you keep your
nuclear family, you keep your religion, you keep your straight sex…you get the whole thing. All they get is a chance to be like you. Isn’t
imitation the highest form of flattery?
As for the disruptive effects that gay marriage will have on society in general, well, I guess I just don’t understand how promoting long term,
stable relationships causes disarray. Again, these people want to join families, they want the rights, recognition and responsibilities that go along
with a marriage…and you think this is disruptive? This is normalizing at best. It provides stable social structures for people, it encourages
‘family values’ (not traditional ones, but still family ones) and it nurtures these structures.
Finally then, if you supports civil unions, then what are you actually objecting? You already recognize the positive aspects of gay marriage, but you
want it to somehow be separate but equal. I mean, I used to marry coffee and cream when I was younger, but now I drink it black. OK, that was a little
facetious, but you get my point. Is it really the word that’s the problem? Granting gays and lesbians access to word ‘marriage’ really isn’t
that big of a deal if you just step back and think about. The meanings of words shift constantly, and really, if you’ve gone far enough to
acknowledge that civil unions are valid, then why not just share the word marriage too? I mean, at the least, this will encourage gays to actually
participate in this institution, because it really does let them be equal to everyone else. I’m not familiar with the actual etymology of the word
(maybe someone could fill me in?) but if that’s really what were fighting over, then I’d say why not just wipe that chip off your shoulder.
The fact is separate but equal is never equal. It makes second class citizens out of gays and lesbians, and it certainly does nothing to encourage
them to enter into these long term stable relationships that (supposedly) encourage social cohesion and stability. If you want to maintain separate
but equal, all you are doing is encouraging gays and lesbians to avoid these relationships that you purport to value, because why would anyone go
through the hassle of becoming almost equal? Not worth it, not by a long shot. And if its really the word that you object to sharing, then I guess
I’ll ask why you have no problem sharing it with chemists (who marry to substances all the time), sailors (who marry rope together) and pinochle
players (who try to win tricks when they play a marriage between a king and queen)?
Ok, sorry about the incredible length of this thing. I hope you guys actually read it and tell me what you think (I’m always interested in hearing
other points…My life is so surrounded by like minded people that sometimes I forget opposition ever exists). I should also point out that at least
half the reasons why you should embrace same-sex marriage are reasons why I discourage it. The fact is, same-sex marriage is an incredibly
conservative idea, and realistically, it’s surprising that conservatives haven’t embraced the cause because they’ve found a collection of people
who agree with their family values.
[edit on 16-2-2005 by robotbot]