Ravenwood - 11/21/03 06:30 AM
As a straight man, I'm a little shocked at all the homosexual bigotry going on. There are a lot of conservatives out there saying that they have nothing against homosexuals or what they do behind closed doors, but on the other hand they don't want them to have the same rights under the law as heterosexuals.
I am hearing more and more arguments and "what if" games being played against gay marriage, and none of them hold water. The simple truth is that when two consenting adults who love each other and want to pledge the rest of their lives together, it doesn't matter one bit whether or not they are of the opposite sex. Also, the state should not have the ability to provide benefits for some while denying them for others based solely on their sexual preference.
Most of the "what if" arguments try taking things to the extreme to validate their point. It is the same arguments that gun banners use when they ask if everyone should be permitted to carry around hand grenades or nucular weapons. Here are some of my favorites:
Should people be permitted to marry their dog? -- Well, if the dog has opposable thumbs and can sign the marriage license, I say go for it. You'd have better luck with an orangutan or other primate though.
Should people be permitted to marry little kids? -- Why does every argument about gays always delve into a question of pedophilia? Considering states already forbid heterosexuals from marrying someone under the age of consent, it is a complete red herring. It is a cheap ploy used to drag out the for the children mantra.
Should people be permitted to marry their sister? -- Here we go with incest. To be perfectly honest, as long as you both are consenting adults, I fail to see where it matters to me. Your sister may have something to say about it though, and you'll probably have babies with eight heads, but if it floats your boat, go for it. The reasoning that incestuous relationships may result in a greater number of birth defects, is really no reason to outlaw it either. Parents who are dwarfs or have genetic defects are also more likely to have children with defects. Should we make it illegal for them to procreate?
Allowing homosexuals to marry cheapens the institute of marriage. -- As if gay marriage is worse than shows like Who Wants to Marry a Multi-Millionaire?. The idea that someone else's relationship could cheapen your's simply by existing is ludicrous. Is your relationship with your spouse really so fragile that you feel the need to tell other people how to live their lives?
But homosexuality is immoral. -- So are a lot of other things. Divorce is also immoral, perhaps we should outlaw that. I think it's immoral to bring children into the world that you cannot afford to raise, but I'm not advocating that we start locking up teenagers who get knocked up.
While I wholeheartedly support the state recognition of gay marriage, I do disagree with the judicial activism. Matters like this are best left up to the Legislative branch of government, however I can hardly blame the courts, given this recent Supreme Court decision. At this point the lower courts really have no other choice.
I'm pretty much with you on the issue. I do have one question though...why does the goverment outlaw having multiple wives? It is a morality question, one which the government feels is important to society. Someone marrying multiple wives does not take away from my life, liberty or property, and as you stated earlier, neither does a homosexual marriage. So, I guess the real question is where the government should draw the line. Just something to ponder.
Posted by: Joseph at November 21, 2003 10:27 AMThe institution of marriage predates American government... You'll have to give me better rationale than 'it's bigotry' to justify radically changing marriage to suit the wishes of some tiny minority of sexual deviants. That's the typical liberal excuse, and I don't buy it from you anymore than I buy it from them.
Marriage is not, nor ever has been, a contract based solely on some general sense of attraction, sexual or otherwise. Your claim that it discriminates against homosexuals, then, is laughable. It's irrelevant to them unless they want to legally join with a member of the opposite sex. If they want a few minor legal and tax benefits, they can get most of those without marriage anyway. They are not, however, entitled to social recognition of their relationship. Last time I checked, having society sanction a union hardly qualified as a human right.
Furthermore, all sorts of laws and institutions apply to certain classes of people in practice, but we don't call these discriminatory. We don't say that laws against stealing bread, camping under overpasses, or so on, are discriminatory because only the poor will want to do those things. Well, the left argues that, I suppose, but not with much success.
But call conservatives like me bigots if you want, Steve. Just remember that you're dipping into the same trough as Jesse Jackson and his ilk who throw words like that around to disable their opposition.
Posted by: Owen Courrèges at November 21, 2003 5:26 PMOwen,
We aren't talking about religious institutions that predate the American government. We are talking about the American Government. It is because marriage and homosexuality both predate the government that the government should not be allowed to favor one class over the other. I am talking about recognition of rights and benefits under the government, NOT a religious institution.
I don't want you to change your views. I just want you to recognize that other people have the right to be treated fairly and equally under the law. To say that you are entitled to greater benefits simply because you are heterosexual is wrong.
Posted by: Ravenwood at November 21, 2003 11:08 PMSteve,
When did I mention religion? Heterosexual marriage predates Christianity and every other modern religion. We don't know exactly when it started -- that's how long it's been with us. So this isn't a religious issue.
And I'm afraid that you have a very odd reading of what makes for fairness and equality under the law. Fairness means treating like cases the same, and homosexual relationships are not the moral equivalent of heteosexual ones. No major society has ever, to my knowledge, thought otherwise, save a minority of Westerners during the past few decades.
Even then, nobody considers the paradigm of a male/female relationship to be biologically equivalent to same-sex relationships. Sanctioning one promotes the family, society's basic unit, while the other merely supports sexual urges that serve no biological imperative I'm aware of, nor any fundamental human institution.
As such, the issue of fairness is void. And since we aren't speaking of equal entities, neither is equality.
Finally, I do not believe in denying benefits to homosexuals. However, it isn't homosexuals who are being denied benefits; they simply don't want the ones being offered because they have no desire to enter a male/female union. The issue is whether or not homosexual COUPLES are entitled to the same benefits as heterosexual couples.
And to that question, society rightfully says no, as it has for several millennia.
Posted by: Owen Courrèges at November 22, 2003 2:08 AM(c) Ravenwood and Associates, 1990 - 2014
