Unfortuantely, due to the closemindedness of the average citizen, I must preface this post by saying that I'm not homosexual. I must also note that, while I do have gay friends, they don't influence my view on this issue.
Gay marriage should be legal. This is a civil rights issue. I repeat: This is a CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE.
November 4th, 2008 will go down as one of the most positive days in our country's history, but it will always have an asterix, for, while we shattered civil rights barriers on one front we callously shored them up on another.
Here are the exit poll stats by race:
White --- 49% Yes 51% No (63% of the vote)
Black---- 70% Yes 30% No (10% of the vote)
Latino -- 53% Yes 47% No (18% of the vote)
Asian --- 49% Yes 51% No (6% of the vote)
Other---- 51% Yes 49% No (3% of the vote)
Now by Age:
18-29--- 39% Yes 61% No (20% of the vote)
30-44 -- 55% Yes 45% No (28% of the vote)
45-64 -- 54% Yes 46% No (36% of the vote)
65+ ---- 61% Yes 39% No (15% of the vote)
America, we still have a long way to go.
To be fair, I've included info on both sides of the Prop 8 debate:
Wikipedia_Prop8
YesOn8.com
NoOn8.com
Now, I'll let Oberman take it from here:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
Posts
10 comments:
So it is a civil rights issue, hmm….. I often here this put forth as an argument for gay marriage but do those who really hold it to be true know the difference between a civil right and a benefit? Do many even understand the reasoning behind governmental support of “traditional marriage” in a society or as many have expressed, does supporting “gay marriage” simply provide the naive mind with the illusion of moral superiority? Oberman’s tirade in comparison of blacks in this country and their struggles to attain an equal footing with a cause that routinely circumvents our democracy through judicial fiat and intimidation is not only insulting but complete rubbish; reminds me of the same tactics used by the Klan up until the mid 60’s. Even in Maine, the Judiciary and Legislative branches refuse to allow the citizenry to vote on the matter. Are we to over look such obvious breaches and abuses of power when they fit our agenda and condemn those perceived?
I am not without a heart and understand the needs we have as human beings but I ask you this, if it is truly only about “love” why then when others are willing to provide such couples with the same rights as heterosexual couples under a different definition, is this not good enough? No matter the definition, no matter the document or ceremony sanctifying it, a homosexual relationship will never be seen as normality but as a reality; much like homosexual couples find heterosexual couples different from themselves. Like many American’s, I am more than willing to make concessions and allow homosexual couples the same “benefits” as heterosexuals within reason, but some “ceremonies”, “traditions” and beliefs I hold dear to my heart as well Mr. Oberman! Saying so doesn’t make me a bigot nor guilty of oppressing ones “rights” because what is really at question here is not really about “rights”, it is about forcing the majority of Americans with whom you disagree with into accepting your idea of what marriage should be in a Democracy that has routinely spoken on this issue.
Government support of marriage does serve a purpose in this society and to belittle this is not only ignorant but naïve. If the only criteria to be used in whether a couple should be given the “benefits” marriage brings is love, then why stop with homosexuals? No, it is not the slippery slope argument but the inevitable reality of today’s America. Do polygamists love less, do transsexuals love less, and do bisexuals love less? I wonder, should we make allowances for other species as well? Why should there be any limit on the number of those we love at one time at all? You cannot make the argument for homosexual marriage without the realization that homosexuals would also be “defining” marriage in their interests if they excluded such other groups whose numbers are growing in this brave new world; they would be just as guilty of the bigotry they accuse people like myself of. So is it about love, benefits or a longing to be seen as “normal” that compels the militant homosexual to this end? Frankly, I don’t think such homosexuals know the answer either because love, like all emotion is often irrational. Attempting to “force law” upon a people with whom you disagree with from such a place is bound to fall as short as the expectations we hold for ourselves and those around us. Perhaps it is time to acknowledge the gains made and do away with the tone of “moral superiority” most gay marriage advocates espouse. Otherwise, what makes you so different from the religious sanctimony you decry but so desperately seek?
One of my good friends, Aaron Sullivan, made a good legal point with regard to this. Heterosexuals without any attachment to religion get married in front of judges all the time.
The largest push against gay marriage comes from religious groups. So why don't they object to drunken weekend marriages at casinos or anyone not married in a church. To me the sanctity of marriage comes down to the individual couple's perception of their own union. I don't see how Mark and Steve tying the not or Brittany Spears getting married and divorced seven times during a week-long bender would affect my marriage in the least.
At last, this is such an interesting debate because the side that says gay marriage is "wrong" doesn't understand the side that beleives it is "right." And vice versa. But I do think that within two generations we will see gay as "reality" and not make special laws that point out our differences.
Dustin,
First let me say thank you for the blog in general and to posting on this subject. In our conversation the other night where you wondered if people are reading your blog, here is your proof! Thanks for doing this. While we will not find a remedy to this matter on this blog, at least there is place to communicate our respective positions.
Mack,
First, I hope you don’t mind me addressing you directly. When I discuss topics, I want to engage the other person as best I can. When one sees the opposing view as a person and not a position, there is invariably a modicum of respect that develops, even through the disagreement and dissention.
It’s become no surprise to me that when someone cries out “It’s a Civil Right” as a basis for support of an issue, any issue, opponents invariably deflect it with the “do you even know the difference between a ‘right’ and a ‘benefit’” comment while neither (a) offering clarification between the two to allow for increased understanding or possible dispute nor (b) an argument as to how and why these terms apply to the issue at hand. With that said, I will absolutely acknowledge that you are correct insofar that most people use the words ‘Civil Rights’ without really knowing what it means and with the same frequency as a sailor using the ‘F’ bomb.
However, Dustin is not most people. I am not most people. In your defense, you wouldn’t necessarily know that and since your Blog handle is, I am assuming, a nickname and therefore I do not know if we have ever met. But know this: I am more than familiar with the ‘right’ vs. ‘privilege’, or ‘benefit’, or ‘service’, or ‘whatever word you wish to place here’, argument. Whatever you call it, there still exists a legal and civil ‘unfairness’ to prop 8 regardless of semantic or syntaxual obfuscation.
What really lies at the heart of this isn’t really about love, or sanctity, or religion, or beliefs, though it is affected and driven by those things on both sides. No. At the heart lies a matter of inequality; of civil and legal inequality. For the sake of argument, if a civic or governmental body (in our case, the state of CA) provides, to use your term, a ‘benefit’ to one subset of the populace but excludes that same ‘benefit’ to another, that is discrimination.
But wait, you say, they get the same ‘benefits’ but it’s just called something different. I’m going to type that sentence again, but read only the BOLD: they get the SAME ‘benefits’, BUT it’s called something DIFFERENT. Yes, homosexuals are different. But...To apply laws differently while claiming equality is segregation. Our civil history has already proven that there is no such thing as “separate but equal.” Besides, I’ve looked into this - the difference between marriage and domestic partnership - and they aren’t the same, even in a legal or civil sense, though admittedly they are close. An interesting thing to note is that the biggest difference between the two is actually how you absolve them, but I digress.
Where I can and truly do sympathize is in the area where supporters of prop 8 feel minimized, marginalized, and vilified for there vote, but when you, yes you Mack, state that, “...I am more than willing to make concessions and allow homosexual couples the same “benefits” as heterosexuals within reason,” can you blame their reaction? How very generous, how very magnanimous of you! Where do you claim the ‘right’ to tell others what benefits they can and can’t partake of? Sure, you can argue that being a member of a simple majority in our democratic society gives you such a right. But time and time again, the laws of that very same society have decried and rejected those majorities when they have infringed upon the civil and legal standings of members of our society.
I must admit that I was intrigued with was your statement that “government support of marriage does serve a purpose in this society.” This is a new argument I have not heard yet but you offer no supporting information and I genuinely wish to know more. Can you or someone else reading this blog point me in the direction of more information? And by they way, I also assume that the marriage inferred above was ‘traditional’ marriage, otherwise this argument falls flat inferring that both homosexual and heterosexual marriage serves a governmental purpose. Without additional information or clarification I am not going to make that leap.
I have also often heard in my travels to learn more the argument that gay marriage ‘erodes the sanctity of marriage’, but the subtext that I pick up from every speaker is a genuine belief that gay marriage actually erodes the sanctity of THEIR marriage. But how can that be? I do not know your faith or religion, but I am a Catholic. In the Catholic Church, marriage is a sacrament: a sacred union between a man and woman with God. The legal and civil stature of marriage is secondary. The union is not between a man, a woman, God, and the gay populace of California. Furthermore, if this was about gay Californians wanting to get married in the Catholic Church (or any church for that matter other than the UMC, where gays are openly accepted), then you and I would be standing shoulder to shoulder on this issue. But it’s not. Prop 8 amended a government document to explicitly restrict the ‘benefits’ of marriage to a certain sub-set of the public.
Lastly, please drop the ‘marriage to-or-of animals’ inference when offering your side to the argument. There is no statute that affords equal legal and civil standing between humans and animals. Furthermore, equality between man and animal is not a fundamental or constitutional basis of our society.
Thank you.
Back to you, Dustin. Thanks again. We’ll talk soon. Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to get back to my on-line dating account where I plan to meet a girl, arrange a weekend together in Vegas, get her drunk, get married, get her pregnant, have the marriage annulled 6 days later, deny the kid is mine for the next 5 years, then guest star on Montel Williams for my 15 minutes of fame and a free paternity test.
Wow, nice post Aaron, you are better at deconstructing arguments than me. Thanks to Bryan (aka Mack) and Aaron for engaging this debate so passionately. My side is obvious on this, but I think as always, these debates and the precedents set by them will help us sort through issues that we can't even imagine now. Who knows, maybe animals will soemday be afforded some measure of civil rights after all.
Make sure to tape Montel for me Aaron.
Wow Dustin...
You really got it going ! Kudos to the decaying pic of the red white and blue oil drum, proof that "Rome is burning." And you motivated two heterosexuals to argue over gay rights? I love it. Thank all of you for your comments. So nice to read some blogs that don't sound like Edward Norton's character in 25th hour during the F U monologue in the mirror, or maybe the dinner scene in American History X, or whatever was said at the latest KKK rally that resulted in the murder of a woman attending her first rally, in 2008, really America?
Oh, and what else? Well, I'm not in the mood for highbrow, just got done teaching so I will go freestyle tongue and cheek. Mack, some great points, yet one word kind of jumped off the screen, the use of the adjective "militant" to describe certain gays exercising their voice sounded, well, "militant" and therefore a bit hypocritical. Aaron I agree about how religion has played into the argument.
Now lets go Campbellian on the idea of religion "God is a metaphor for a mystery that transcends all human thought, both the ideas of being and non being, no one has ever seen it or spoken it." So, to declare such righteous morals, ideals, and truths about marriage in the name of a metaphor in a country without forced religion is nothing short of mind boggling to me. It speaks more of a cry for help rather than a cry for truth.
So if we look at the scriptures, all, or any of them, as myth, powerful and purposeful, yet symbols and metaphors that can't be proven, than how can one so be so confident in their judgments and definitions? It becomes an argument of why my beliefs are the superior beliefs. So there lies the problem. The us vs. them mantra. The “equal but separate” conundrum that Aaron pointed out and Orwell exploited and destroyed in Animal Farm.
And as long as we are comparing humans to animals. KUDOS to California, cows can now shake their ass a bit before we eat them, but gay humans, well you don't deserve more rights. Interesting.
Thanks for listening,
Bruce
Thanks Bruce for joining the party. And thanks to all three of you for making this a discussion and not some quippy bashfest. One thing I want to say about "Mack" is that he is one of the few friends I have who holds Conservative or at least conservative leaning views, so, Mack, you may be up against it for a while until we get some more Republicans on here.
My education, travels and artistic interests have definitely veered me into "the left lane of politics." But it doesn't stop me from appreciating good arguments between people who equally love this country.
A few months ago I was in line at Safeway and when the woman in front of me saw my Obama 08 t-shirt, she asked me: "so what is it about Obama? Why do you support him?" I gave her my thoughts about Obama's ability to heal divides, inspire youth and be a better diplomat and she responded with: "Well I don't believe in the Separation of Church and State." When she said that, I knew we could no longer have a conversation. We held fundamentally different views about the very foundation and the future ideal of our democracy. How could we debate on current issues when our foundations for those arguments were so different?
Gay marriage is like this. I beleive that the foundational difference is that some people see gay as absolutely natural and normal (like blond hair or being left-handed) while others see it as a post-pubescent choice or some freakish subculture.
The interesting line in Mack's argument is when he uses the phrase "within reason" when talking of concessions and benefits. This phrase betrays an arms-length relationship with the gay community. This same phrase was probably used by Jim Crow law makers in the south who were also trying to appear conciliatory. I understand that Mack doesn't see the parralel between black and gay rights, but this fight will continue and the constitution and court precedent will ultimately serve, as it always does, to expand human rights.
If you guys look closer at the numbers on my post, in one generation (basically when the baby boomers are gone) gay marriage will be legal in California. For the moment, the finiteness of human life seems to be serving the progrssive movement.
"Whatever you call it, there still exists a legal and civil ‘unfairness’ to prop 8 regardless of semantic or syntaxual obfuscation."
I am not sure that “legal unfairness” qualifies as a denial of rights and the idea of “civil unfairness” is one of complete conjecture without the applicability of law. Such sentiments are at the heart of this debate and why I take issue with this subject. When such discussions arise it is inevitable that the application of law takes on a completely different meaning. Law is devoid of subjectivity or emotion for good reason and neither should have any bearing in trying to apply it. A conundrum does arise from law however, which is the ambiguity of language that in most circles simply lends itself to the distortions of those who wish to wield it to further their cause. In short, marriage is a religious ceremony that has come to receive recognition by the government for the “potential” it can provide to society. It is a benefit that is not denied to homosexuals but one in which they do not take advantage of. For instance, say there is a GPA requirement that I must attain in order to qualify for a government scholarship, or a racial component, is it discriminatory if I do not fulfill either? Are my rights being violated if they refuse?
“To apply laws differently while claiming equality is segregation”
What laws are we applying currently that cannot be applied to the average Homosexual? A homosexual is not denied any of the benefits a heterosexual has except when trying to apply those benefits to the “relationship” they have chosen to enter into. The homosexual has “chosen” not to take advantage of the “benefits”. The simplistic analogy above applies once again.
“can you blame their reaction? How very generous, how very magnanimous of you! Where do you claim the ‘right’ to tell others what benefits they can and can’t partake of?”
I do not claim the right to tell others what benefits they can or can’t partake in but the law does and as above, laws do not lend themselves to being interpreted or practiced in a vacuum. One cannot simply deconstruct or rewrite laws through unelected officials whenever life does not lend itself to their wants or needs. For example, suppose I decided after years of soul searching that I was in love with a man and a woman. What if I wanted to marry both of them? What if I wanted the same benefits awarded to heterosexuals? I have made a personal decision that the state and federal government must now recognize by law because I have chosen not to take the path offered? How is this any different from what the homosexual community is currently doing? Are we discriminating against those in relationships with more than two adults now? In short, yes we are and in now trying to deny the reality of gender, we are also opening the door to anybody or any relationship that demands recognition.
“Lastly, please drop the ‘marriage to-or-of animals’ inference when offering your side to the argument. There is no statute that affords equal legal and civil standing between humans and animals. Furthermore, equality between man and animal is not a fundamental or constitutional basis of our society.”
I would agree this analogy is extravagant but goes right to the heart of the “erosion of the sanctity of marriage” argument many raise and that many routinely discount. First of all, you simply avoid addressing the polygamist, transsexual, bisexual references because they clearly undermine your arguments. Again, you cannot “redefine marriage” in terms agreeable to you without acknowledging that in doing so you will inevitably confer the “benefits” of a traditional marriage to any group, person, couple or whatever that feels they deserve or are entitled to a “marriage certificate” on the basis of love or the assumption that their rights are being violated. If you can, I would be most interested in hearing how?
“Prop 8 amended a government document to explicitly restrict the ‘benefits’ of marriage to a certain sub-set of the public.”
Forgive my redundancy but benefits which are not denied to the average homosexual but the “relationship” they have entered into and now seek acknowledgment of; hardly the same thing.
“I must admit that I was intrigued with was your statement that “government support of marriage does serve a purpose in this society.”
I imagine you are aware that the concept of marriage as defined currently is much different from that of past America but what has not changed is the fundamental outcome. Marriage in theory provides more economic stability to our country’s citizenry and even with the “cultural revolution” still fulfills this theory the majority of the time. However, at its core is the potential to procreate and raise children. Having done so, traditional marriage undeniably provides the best potential of adequately furthering the next generation and hence society. Biologically, man and woman are designed for this purpose alone but they also each serve vital roles in the development of the child. Yes modern technology allows for a homosexual couples to raise the offspring of a third party, many quite well in fact, but is it in the best “long term” interests of the child or our society given the very little data we have? Should we just “go with it” because it feels good or normal in the classic sense of the word? Government endorsement of the traditional arrangement simply recognizes this reality just as it does that those from disadvantaged backgrounds may better benefit from a scholarship in which I would be denied. Another example, what if I now decided I felt strongly that I had more in common with African-American’s and wished for society to acknowledge me as such. I now wish to be eligible for any programs currently in place to assist the African-American community. Being ineligible does not mean my rights are being denied but acknowledges government’s responsibility in doing what it can to improve the lives of all its citizens. However, it cannot be all things to all people and at all times.
“Where I can and truly do sympathize is in the area where supporters of prop 8 feel minimized, marginalized, and vilified for there vote”
I perhaps feel more empowered to voice my opinion on this subject, in regards to this phenomenon, more than any other. I frankly don’t have a vested interest in denying people their right to happiness but I ask you and others again. How do we “legally”, emotions aside or what makes us feel good, make concessions for the homosexual community based on their definition of “rights”, which cannot be applied to any human seeking governmental acknowledgement/benefits for their relationship? If you can give me a “legal” interpretation that would facilitate the reality you wish to see without completely destroying the one we have built over the past 200 plus years, than you would have my vote at the box instead of relying on judicial fiat to further a cause that the people have routinely voted against and a Constitution that does not lend itself credit too. After all, is this a democracy by the people, for the people or one that is to be undermined by unelected officials with personal agendas? Even the pursuit of happiness has “limits” within our society and for good reason. If everybody ran around doing what made them feel better or demanding “rights” for the sake of it, our country would simply cease to be a nation of laws. Although I do not see gay marriage bringing the United States down, it does set a precedent that does much to undermine the strengths of our country by circumventing them. That is what is at the heart of this discussion for me personally. I would like nothing more than to be on the side of what “makes me feel good” or for which I would be seen as just and kind in the eyes of my fellow citizen but my intuition, which is painfully laconic at times, guides me in all aspects of my life just as logic and reasoning does. I cannot simply turn it off and on every time the wind changes directions.
“Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to get back to my on-line dating account where I plan to meet a girl, arrange a weekend together in Vegas, get her drunk, get married, get her pregnant, have the marriage annulled 6 days later, deny the kid is mine for the next 5 years, then guest star on Montel Williams for my 15 minutes of fame and a free paternity test.”
Oh yes, free will and the pursuit of happiness. Perhaps if we could get back to the idea that the world doesn’t revolve around our needs or wants and that we have a responsibility in it, we would see much less of this reality. Alas, that is what in many ways this is all about and to hell with what is good for the country or society. It all comes down to my “sexual preference”! Really, how selfish can a cause be, given the fact that the majority of American’s and our new president by the way, are willing to give the same “benefits” as heterosexual relationships but under different symbolism, yet still it is perceived as unjust by the gay militant. No the “militant” will use whatever means necessary to force their wishes upon those that do not agree "entirely". In this case, the overwhelming majority of Americans.They demonizes, ostracize and accuse others of hate or homophobia because we believe just as passionately about our cause as they do. The progressive left, once the bastion of “free speech” is certainly anything but these days. One only need visit a university campus wearing a McCain tee shirt in order to draw out the new definition of “free speech” the “Left” currently practices. Now I digress!
I commend Dustin for providing a forum in which we can all disagree amicably and welcome any ones opinion on this matter. If there is one thing I have discovered since I began engaging in political dialogue is that logic and reasoning routinely take a back seat in many such discussions. Even the most coherent of individual willfully discards the ideals that normally guide them in their day to day routine when presented with a political issue. I am certainly no exception but in matters of the law I simply believe in treading cautiously. Anyhow, my apologies for the length gentleman and before I forget, Lara says hello Dustin.
Hey gang,
Sorry for the long silence. Bruce, welcome to the party. Leave it to you to whip out the ‘God is a metaphor...’ argument. Jesus man, this is complicated enough as it is.
Dustin
I liked your analogy to the Jim Crow lawmakers. I thought about it in my initial response to decided against it. Glad to see someone draw the parallel because it is applicable. I’d like to post, when time permits (which is in short supply right now), a little information on one of your other threads about a recent experience that is uniquely American – jury duty. But first to the matter at hand...
“First of all, you simply avoid addressing the polygamist, transsexual, bisexual references because they clearly undermine your arguments.”
I love it. I choose not to argue every-single-‘effing’-point and that exclusion implies that it undermines my argument. Sorry boss, but I don’t get to sit on a beach with a laptop on vacation spending hours upon days to craft my arguments. I have to pick and choose the points I make. Furthermore, I did not address it because it (a) it’s not at issue - you claim to not argue the ‘slippery slope’ in one breath and then whip out all these other lifestyles people ‘choose’ to enter into to distract from the matter at hand, and (b), can still be broken down into heterosexual or homosexual unions. For example a bisexual male who settles down and marries a woman is free to do so, but a, and lets get crazy here, a post-op, trans-sexual male that settles down and tries to marry a woman can’t. Why? This would classify as a homosexual relationship. On the point of polygamy I offer two counters (a) at least the polygamist gets governmental recognition of a least one of the marriages where gays get a consolatory domestic partnership, and (b) polygamy is not the issue at hand. Then you whip out what I can only assume is homo-polygamy? “What if I want to marry both,” a man and a woman? Come on, dude, let’s stay on point here. Enough with the “if we do this then that means that we will do that” arguments. That’s not the issue. I know you think it is, but its not. I am simply trying to focus on Gay rights vis a vis gay marriage – two parties of the same sex. No claim to multiple partners or animals, just a monogamous, homosexual couple wishing to marry with the government’s blessing. Period.
“When such discussions arise it is inevitable that the application of law takes on a completely different meaning. Law is devoid of subjectivity or emotion for good reason and neither should have any bearing in trying to apply it. A conundrum does arise from law however, which is the ambiguity of language that in most circles simply lends itself to the distortions of those who wish to wield it to further their cause.”
First off, I agree WHOLEHEARTEDLY with this statement, as well as your other statements that ‘law should be blind’ and that ‘law can’t be practiced in vacuum.’ But both sides are trying to hold fast to these beliefs in ‘the law’ with one hand while pushing the envelope with the potential to violate and undermine them with the other to further a cause, so do not lay claim that this activity is unique to the pro-gay marriage side of this debate. A highly oversimplified example to illustrate: Pro traditional marriage claims that the pro gay marriage camp is receiving preferential treatment because the ‘law’ is ‘seeing’ them as gay and is making concessions because of that fact, while those pro gay marriage claim that the ‘laws’ that preach equality should be applied equally to gay and strait, but those same ‘laws’ are being callously applied by the pro traditional marriage camp who ‘sees’ them as gay and are therefore excluding them. From a legal standpoint who’s right? Only time will tell though the employment of the “ambiguity of language”; it’s not perfect but what else do we have? Regardless of the matter at hand, I have faith that our system of government, in all its multitude of forms, will sort this all out.
BTW, I do not say this implying that you do not have similar faith in our system of government. I only mean to say that time and time again our system with its three branches of government have been able to keep each other in check. In those cases where one branch managed to get ahead of itself, the other two have been able to dial it back. Maybe it would take a while but eventually equilibrium was/is reached, and I believe that this situation is no different.
But this talk of movement and equilibrium brings me to another point I wish to make: that our Government and system of laws is alive, dynamic, and ever evolving – There is a level of subjectivity, of interpretation, for better or worse, in this system. You are right Mack. While I would argue that the concept of equal rights under the law exists, there is nothing in any statute that explicitly calls for the civil rights of gays, or that those civil rights extend to the realm of gay marriage. However, conceding that does not make this a “done deal” or that those who support gay rights should just ‘sit down and shut up.’ That my friend, is the beauty of our system. Besides, there was a time when there were no laws that explicitly called for, and worse yet the populace en mass was not calling for, the expansion of rights for blacks or women. And if the laws of our land and the beliefs of its people were truly static, so truly absolute; if everyone said “well that’s the way we’ve done it for 200 years, so that’s the way we should do it now”, slavery would still be on the books, women couldn’t vote or own property, and this place would be the lesser for it. While tradition and precedent are important, they do not, nor have they ever, reigned supreme.
“Marriage in theory provides more economic stability to our country’s citizenry and even with the “cultural revolution” still fulfills this theory the majority of the time.”
I won’t disagree. In fact again I agree whole-heartedly but will stipulate that homosexual marriage does the same thing. It is essentially an ‘economy of scale’ in a domestic setting – whether they are heterosexual or homosexual is immaterial, so by that reasoning the government should support both. On procreation, people procreate regardless of whether or not they are married, and the government really has no say in that matter, now does it? Besides if procreation, ‘traditional’ or otherwise, in America was the only way to expand the numbers of our society, then we’d be in trouble. In terms of a ‘fertility rate’ to grow the population you need a rate of 2.1 (statistically speaking of course), but America, just as other developed nations such as Great Britain, Italy, and Japan, has a rate in the 1.6-1.9 range and should therefore have a population that is shrinking. Why? Because in developed nations, having and raising children is expensive. But why is America’s population still growing? Simple. Immigration, which is WAY beyond the scope of this argument. I bring it up only in the context of ‘growing our society’ by way of makin’ babies - whether it’s a man and woman (married or unmarried), gay’s deciding to have a child, or a woman selecting donor 596879 -just ain’t cuttin’ it anymore. Many developed nations (America included) have in fact relaxed their immigration laws to keep their country’s population moving net-positive.
On segregation and that this isn’t segregation because “The homosexual has simply “chosen” not to take advantage of the “benefits”” of a heterosexual union; a theme that runs over and over in your arguments like a broken record: Here it is folks, one of the cruxes of this whole issue. That homosexuality is a choice, and that if those damn homo’s would just ‘choose’ God’s path, ‘choose’ to live within the laws as they are currently written and interpreted, stop living in sin, stop being so ‘icky’, go back into the closet, stop claiming that they have rights, and stop fighting for the same ‘classification’ as hetero’s, then we wouldn’t be in this mess.
And that you make an analogy in one of your arguments where you ‘choose’ to be black?! Wow dude, I don’t know what to say. I am damn near speechless. First off, I find it mildly humorous in that you are illustrating my point quite well –That gay’s can choose to not be gay with about as much ease, effort, and success as you can choose to be black…but let’s go with it anyway. Your ‘choice’ in this argument is so that you can lay claim to governmental benefits or assistance? By that argument, homosexuals who really wish to ‘benefit’ from marriage (and since ‘choosing’ to not be gay is so easy, right?) should be jumping the sinking homo ship left and right. But they aren’t? Why? Because, if anyone reading this thread that has been able and comfortable (not an easy task I assure you) to speak to someone who is homosexual about their sexual orientation, they will tell you that this orientation, to quote Dustin, is as much a part of their makeup “as blond hair or being left-handed”. In their eyes it is not a choice; it is who they are, and I respect that, and as such I can not help but empathize on the matter at hand. I guess that makes me a bleeding heart liberal...so fucking sue me. But seeing homosexuality as ‘just a lifestyle choice’ makes it easy to ‘see’ them as just a bunch of ‘selfish,’ loudmouth freaks going against the grain of the ‘established, traditional society’, lousing it up for the rest of us.
But the truth is those militant gays that piss Mack off so much, banging away and demanding ‘their rights’ and ‘doing whatever feels good at the moment’, make up such a small, almost infinitesimal portion of the gay community. The ones you don’t see are more like the heterosexual masses then you realize – Quiet, committed, monogamous relationships between two people with jobs, and bills, and taxes, and families – both nucleus and extended, with dreams and aspirations not all that unlike their heterosexual brethren. While I’ve never spoken to the ones I know on this next point, I really should, and so should you all: “What do you really want from all of this? To what end is this all for?” For the sake of this thread I’m going to venture a guess at what they just might say. They aren’t under any illusions. They aren’t asking for the whole friggin’ country to embrace them with open arms, or that the by being allowed to marry, should such a thing come to pass, means that they are ‘normal’ in the eyes of everyone. No. They just want a shot, just one friggin’ shot at ‘normalcy’, whatever the hell that means these days. A chance at equal footing, at being accepted, to not be excluded or blamed for the woes of society, to not be seen as a second-class citizen. To not be seen as sub-human, shamed by a ‘society’ that thinks homosexuality is dirty and vile and disgusting. They aren’t kidding themselves either: Just as racism, in all its various forms, will never be completely stamped out, bias and bigotry towards homosexuals won’t either. But Jesus, what harm are they REALLY doing. Point to one area of our ‘ailing society’ (if you believe such a thing) that is caused by homosexuality (Darn it. Those damn homo’s ‘effed’ up the economy again; we wouldn’t have so much crime if it wasn’t for all those homo’s running around; Global warming – it’s ‘cause of all them homo’s, isn’t it). How about point to one area of society that is shored up by the banning of gay marriage. What societal ails does this fix? What’s the harm? Aren’t they humans too? Aren’t they Americans? In addition to the pursuit of happiness that Mack referenced, aren’t they also entitled to life AND liberty too? Equality? Freedom to have a ‘choice’ (which isn’t really a choice at all) not count against them?
Wow, the gay marriage debate continues thanks to Mack and Aaron.
For the record, Mack is not on vacation but in medical school. Due to the competiveness of the current medical field, Mack had to go offshore so that he could then come back and heal our sorry asses. Don't worry though, his hypocratic oath extends to gay loving liberals as well.
One point that I let hang out there was this idea of the college campus and free speech that Mack brought up in his last comment.
I totally empathize with his sentiment because back when I had more conservative leanings, I felt like telling people would slap me with a yellow star and I would be shouted down post haste by the overwhelming mob of liberals littering the halls of the English Department.
But even then, free speech is not in any danger. They by yelling at me are practicing their free speech and me by defending myself would be soing the same. Just because you have large numbers of outspoken advocates in one particular place, doesn't mean that free speech is in any danger.
But yes colleges are typically more liberal...until you go to the business department...or at times the political science department or department of economics. Yes colleges have their bastions of conservatism too where liberals can complain of persecution by their professors or clasmates.
Now going back to the gay marriage issue, I must agree with Aaron that the crux of this debate resides in society's perception of homosexuality. I know Bryan will probably say that he has no problem with homosexuals. (A refrain by many that often comes with the addendum "Just don't do it around me." or the more vulgar and narcissistic version "Just don't try to fuck me in the ass.")But I've noticed the following trend in my converations on this matter.
People that have no problem with homosexuality have no problem with gay marriage. I have yet to meet someone like this where this isn't true. Those who have a problem with homosexuality (from the Wyoming gay basher...to the squemish like my mother) have a problem with gay marriage.
Bryan, you may be the only person who I have heard engage this debate with logic and vigorous argument. Most opponents I talk to simply become exasperated and sum up with "It's just wrong, okay!" Thia is what I call the "icky" argument. Gay sex is icky so that's that.
Based on this trend of supporters and opposers, I again state that it is a matter of time till it happens. This is not an argument for why it should. God knows there are generational trends that suck. But I think we as a society will find that this generational shift will set our country free in ways we can't imagine.
Now Aaron and I yield the floor to Mack, or to a Mythic Interlude from Bruce Matthes.
Hey gang,
Me again. Before Mack retakes the floor (as I have no doubt he will do so) I had a few other thoughts I wanted to pass along that are related to same sex marriage but outside the Mack v. Aaron exchange that has dominated this thread.
While Mack and I have been engaging in a little playful banter as to WHY same sex marriage should or should not be legal, I wanted to point out that Dustin has mentioned a point more than once that should not be overlooked. It is a point that I too have thought much about: “Screw the logic and the arguments for and against it, WILL it come to pass?”
As I was thinking about this matter, I was trying to put it all in a little perspective: I am 34 years old. My father was 29 when I was born in 1974 and was therefore 34 in 1979. Forget whether or not he had a position on this issue as I guarantee you in all likelihood he didn’t since who in their right mind would even bring it up!?. The question I'd like to know is did he even KNOW somebody who was openly gay!? And here we are, talking about, debating about, fighting about same sex marriage? I think that is pretty damn amazing. If this stays the course, I, like Dustin, have no doubt same sex marriage will come to be reality.
But now, right now, I wonder if it was “too much, too soon”. I wonder if people thought, “What?!?! We’re going to vote a black man into the white house and let gays openly marry?!?!?! AHHHhhhhh!!!!! Run away! Run away!” People en mass, are creatures of habit and take comfort in established ways of doing things. While California as a whole is quite progressive, this is a lot for the average, individual Californian to swallow.
Lastly, I’ve heard it said that people invariably act on emotion and justify the action after the fact with logic. Everyone employs it differently, but we all apply it in one way or another and to varying degrees. Why do I bring this up? Because I’d bet that regardless of what “after-the-fact-style” logic we used when voting on Prop 8, or for those of you outside of CA your general position on gay marriage, for 99.99% of us, the way we voted has a one-to-one corollary with the ‘icky’ question. In some ways that’s unfortunate, in others it’s comforting, to know that, for better or worse, this is really the ONLY litmus that seems to matter. And as demographics and the comfort levels with the homosexual community continue to shift, well, you get the idea…
And with that, Mack, take it away...
Post a Comment