Richard K. McPike ([info]fireball1244) wrote,
@ 2004-01-04 19:09:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Current mood: anxious
Current music:"Forever Young," by Temperance, from "Virtues of Life"

Response thread for "The To-Do Over 'I Do'" (Part I)
The To-Do Over “I Do” (Part I). 1/5/2004. This year, despite being that of a presidential election, will be the year when America finally embarks on one course (liberty) or another (oppression) regarding the issue of gay marriage. Will America embrace its own, or cast out gays through a Federal Marriage Amendment? Part one of this series considers why Republicans should oppose this proposed law. Read this column. (After January 11, go here to read the column).

This LiveJournal entry was created to allow feedback to be posted for the column. If you do not have a LiveJournal, you can still post your feedback using an “anonymous” account, but please put some sort of moniker at the end of your post. Please keep conversation civil.


(8 comments) - (Post a new comment)

If I have to hear my family talk about this ONE more time...
[info]jalfrdprufrocky
2004-01-04 11:22 pm UTC (link)
I support gay marriage and abhor any amendment that has the audacity to give a religious and social institution a political definition. Doing so neither protects marriage itself or the citizens of the United States. Of course, the arguments that I have heard in favor of the FMA inevitably fall into either the category of religious dogma ("The Bible defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman") or generalized opinions about society ("America has only ever recognized unions between men and women and that's the way it should stay. Any other way goes against our societal ideal.") Neither religion or personal beliefs should ever influence the creation of a law, particularly religion. Simply believing something is wrong is not the same as proving that it is dangerous and damaging, and if those who support this law are so worried that the sacred ideal of marriage will be corrupted by gay unions, I'd first suggest they try reducing the statistics of the numbers of divorces that take place every year. I have yet to hear any arguments for the creation of the law, including these, that make any logical sense.

Asking for the creation of "civil unions" is the same as demanding the separation of one segment of society from the other through prettified language. And I'm not sure how codifying the Constitution to state that marriages made in one state need not be recognized by another one would please anybody; I doubt Republicans supporting the FMA would approve of making gay marriage partially illegal just as I would never support making any kind of marriage partially legal. If I were in such a union, I would personally not appreciate having to go through the nebulous specifications of state laws to find out just what kind of rights my marriage would or wouldn't have, just to have those rights change the second I decided to cross the border into Oklahoma.

So, while I agree with everything you say, I doubt many "rank and file Republicans" goosestepping to the lead of the Bush administration will take your advice (simply said because I don't know any who would.) But would senators and congressmen want to take the chance of alienating such a large percentage of the population simply to codify their beliefs? Actually... now that I think of it... yes, yes they would, because they're THAT stupid. But I hope you're right about it failing and causing backlash against the GOP. Because I would like to see that.

Um... and I also wanted to ask you opinion about something. Coming as I do from a childhood of having to listen to Dr. Laura, I've often heard arguments made against children being brought up in families that don't consist of both a husband and a wife (because children need both a male and female influence, etc.) Naturally, the existence of gay marriages would probably bring up the question of whether or not children should be brought in gay households. I have my own opinions about this, but I wanted to hear what yours were.

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: If I have to hear my family talk about this ONE more time...
[info]fireball1244
2004-01-04 11:38 pm UTC (link)
Coming as I do from a childhood of having to listen to Dr. Laura, I've often heard arguments made against children being brought up in families that don't consist of both a husband and a wife (because children need both a male and female influence, etc.) Naturally, the existence of gay marriages would probably bring up the question of whether or not children should be brought in gay households. I have my own opinions about this, but I wanted to hear what yours were.

The issue of imbalanced influence comes up a lot in discussions regarding gay marriage, but I think it's mostly a red herring -- the sort of desperate straw social conservatives cling to when they realize they've lost the substantive portion of the debate.

The fact of the matter is that no child in our culture is likely to be raised without influences from both genders. Even if both parents were male, for example, a child would have female influences throughout his/her life, some of them very maternal. He/she would have, most likely, grandmother, maybe two. He/she would have female teachers, and friends with mothers. He/she would probably have aunts or perhaps a sister. Influences on children from both genders abound in modern American life.

I'm sure everyone reading this had more than one male influence in their formative years. The same for a maternal/female influence. Unless the child was being raised by his/her gay parents on one of the remote atolls at the end of the Hawaiian island chain, the limiting of influence is not a very persuasive argument against putting children who need homes with loving parents in homes with gay parents.

There's also the matter of philosophical consistency. If conservatives are really worried about the effect on children of single-gender parented homes, then they should probably get their own heterosexual house in order first. Most single-gender parent homes are single straight mothers. Where's the amendment to stop divorce? To ban absentee fathers? To require marriage before legal insemination? Nowhere. And it should be nowhere. Surely by now we've come to accept that working families (which is to say families that work, not families with union members) come in all sorts of different configuration.

And if a single mother can legitimately raise a well-balanced, healthy son (and I know many that have), then why can't two men raise a similarly well adjusted child? The entire position makes no logical nonsense. It's just a cover for religious disagreement with the very existence of homosexuals.

Anyways, damn near every Disney character seemed to come from a broken or single parent home, and they all turned out okay. Except for Bambi, who got hooked on crack. Stupid Bambi.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
What is the point?
(Anonymous)
2004-01-05 10:12 am UTC (link)
I was going to write a response that would detail why marriage should remain as it has been defined for quite some time, but then I figured it won't make a difference given the hyperbole used in the article and comment section, it is impossible for the author to see anyone else's position in this discussion. Discussing things with closed minds is like talking to a wall - pointless.

TryME

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: What is the point?
[info]fireball1244
2004-01-05 10:18 am UTC (link)
Whose mind, exactly, is it that's closed here? The one who wants equality for all people, or the person who clings to oppression?

Given that gay marriages have been occurring in other countries for some time now with no deleterious effects on those society's cultures, I'd be interested in seeing what sort of reasonable justification you can come up with for maintaining the current discrimination in the United States.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: What is the point?
(Anonymous)
2004-01-05 10:40 am UTC (link)
Ok, even if you choose to use hyperbole terms.

Marriage means something to me. I am married under the one man one woman policy. That is what I signed up for, paid for (government license) and what I expect it to remain. If I say I am married, other parties don't have to ask me what is the name of my husband/wife. When I fill out insurance policies for health insurance, I don't have to clarify what gender I am married to. I *never* want to be asked what the gender of my spouce is from an employer, associate, government official - or anyone for that matter. Changing the definition changes what marriage is to me - so I find this a personal issue.

Futhermore, absolutely zero discrimination exists. You are entitled to marry whomever you want under the law, the exact *SAME* laws I am under. Neither of us can marry someone of the same gender - explain how that is discrimination. Discrimination is not being allowed to do something that someone else is entitled to do - for instance, golf courses where blacks aren't allowed is discrimination - if everyone was allowed on the course and everyone has to follow the same rules, then no discrimination exists. Equality is for all people, you are equally entitled to the identical right I have. You want to oppress me and force a change upon me and my marriage I do not want.

To be clear, if the goal was a civil union where you identify yourselves as partners, great, fine, enjoy it. I don't care, I won't be in a civil union nor identify myself as a partner and it doesn't impact me. I also could care less if it isn't implemented. It makes zero difference to me either way. It may make me apathetic, but right now, I see the homosexual push trying to impact my life and makes me less concerned with homosexual concerns vs mine.

To make the point clear, lets assume you're proud to be an American (not implying anything as to if you are or not, feel free to replace American with whatever you're proud of) and seeing you have animosity towards 'religious' types, those religious types gained control over the government and implemented a theocracy - would you still maintain being American means the same thing? That is what I see the push to legalize (change the definition of) marriage for gays as.

TryME

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: What is the point?
[info]fireball1244
2004-01-05 11:47 am UTC (link)
Marriage means something to me.

And we must all toil under the definition you want to apply to "marriage"?

I am married under the one man one woman policy.

Good for you. You were able to marry the person you love. I am not afforded the same luxury. Why? Because religious types hate me for no good reason, and seek to use the government as their instrument of that hate.

That is what I signed up for, paid for (government license) and what I expect it to remain.

You sound here like the old racists in the South, whining that blacks and whites were marrying, when dagnabbit, that's not what they think marriage should have been!

If I say I am married, other parties don't have to ask me what is the name of my husband/wife.

Why wouldn't they have to ask your spouse's name? You all don't have the same name, and more and more married couples don't have the same last name, either.

When I fill out insurance policies for health insurance, I don't have to clarify what gender I am married to. I *never* want to be asked what the gender of my spouce is from an employer, associate, government official - or anyone for that matter.

Oh, so because you don't want to have to tell someone that you have a husband/wife instead of a wife/husband, millions of gays should be denied the 300+ rights and privileges that are inherent in marriage?

Changing the definition changes what marriage is to me - so I find this a personal issue.

Again, same argument as the old racists from the South. For them the definition of marriage was "a man and a woman of the same race," and they made all the same hollow arguments for their position that you do here. But they were wrong. Discrimination is always wrong. Always. And separate but equal never can be.

Futhermore, absolutely zero discrimination exists. You are entitled to marry whomever you want under the law, the exact *SAME* laws I am under. Neither of us can marry someone of the same gender - explain how that is discrimination.

It is discrimination because you can marry the person you love and are sexually attracted to. I cannot. It is discrimination because if I, a male, wish to marry someone, I cannot choose another male, which is parsing for no good reason based on gender, which is discriminatory.

It is also discrimination because it is the government saying that your relationship is "good," while mine is "bad." A couple of horny drunk breeders can hook up and marry the same night they meet in Las Vegas. To gay men can live together in monogamy and love for 50 years, and not have the rights those two drunk fuckbunnies were able to secure just for the hell of it. How is that even remotely right? It's only okay if you hate gay people.

You want to oppress me and force a change upon me and my marriage I do not want.

Oppression? When your government renders you a second class citizen and spits on your relationship, calling it less valid, calling it worthless, rendering it unequal in every way, then you can talk about oppression. Having to specify the gender of your spouse on a form is NOT oppression.

How, precisely, is your having to check a box or tell someone your spouse's name is Sheila, not Shane, is so egregiously bad that it justifies marginalizing and demeaning countless loving relationships?

To be clear, if the goal was a civil union where you identify yourselves as partners, great, fine, enjoy it.

A civil union is worse than worthless unless it also contains every last single right and privelege that comes with marriage. But that will never happen, because separate but equal is a political impossibility. I'm willing to accept civil unions as a stopgap measure, but only as a step on the road to true equality.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: What is the point?
(Anonymous)
2004-01-05 12:25 pm UTC (link)
"It is discrimination because you can marry the person you love and are sexually attracted to. I cannot. It is discrimination because if I, a male, wish to marry someone, I cannot choose another male, which is parsing for no good reason based on gender, which is discriminatory."

No it isn't, the law doesn't care HOW YOU FEEL, it only cares about what is legally defined and what isn't. Feelings can't be legislated. Some people feel they should be able to marry dogs or cats or multiple people or children or siblings or parents. They can't, I can't and you can't. Zero discrimintation. Everyone is treated equal under the law. Just because you wish to choose a male and you're a male doesn't make it discrimination unless someone else can do it and you're not entitled. Don't bend discrimintation to include preferance outside of existing laws.

You want to legalize something which isn't legal currently and change the vehicle by which people are joined in marriage - something founded in the religious beliefs you seem to hate - and if you're not allowed you cry discrimination when if fact your wanting to *change* what has existed for centuries and what impacts other people.

"It is also discrimination because it is the government saying that your relationship is "good," while mine is "bad.""

Wow - I really missed that, please point to the government specifically calling your relationship bad - as in a law, in some exact words. I've never seen any government organization pass a law specifically declaring your relationship 'bad'.

"A couple of horny drunk breeders can hook up and marry the same night they meet in Las Vegas."

So is that the slang slur for straights, breeders?

"To gay men can live together in monogamy and love for 50 years, and not have the rights those two drunk fuckbunnies were able to secure just for the hell of it. How is that even remotely right? It's only okay if you hate gay people."

I guess we have seperate definitions of what *civil discussion* means, your hate is overpowering. Are you implying that, because anyone for whatever reason doesn't want the definition of marriage changed to mean any two persons as opposed to a male and a female, they, therefore must hate gays? I have a gay friend who I need to let know, he hates himself (and apparently his boyfriend and all other gays too) - as he doesn't want to change the definition of marriage.

"Oppression? When your government renders you a second class citizen and spits on your relationship, calling it less valid, calling it worthless, rendering it unequal in every way, then you can talk about oppression. Having to specify the gender of your spouse on a form is NOT oppression."

Wow, marriage is like your holy grail. Like I said, you're close minded, no chance of even remotely seeing how your goal impacts me and my relationship - you trivialized how I feel, completely disregarded what your goals are and how they impact me. And somehow you expect me to care about how you feel....

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: What is the point?
[info]fireball1244
2004-01-05 01:11 pm UTC (link)
No it isn't, the law doesn't care HOW YOU FEEL, it only cares about what is legally defined and what isn't.

You know that the point of marriage in modern America is to formalize and provide benefits to those who are in a permanent romantic relationship. That's the normative function of marriage in American society.

Some people may feel they should be able to marry dogs or cats or multiple people or children or siblings or parents.

Do not compare homosexuality to bestiality, pedophilia or incest. Totally unrelated.

Just because you wish to choose a male and you're a male doesn't make it discrimination unless someone else can do it and you're not entitled.

But see, someone else can marry a man, a woman can. I can't do what a woman can do, but for no good reason. Why not? Discrimination.

Your position on this matter is a 100% reproduction of the position of the bigots who tried to block interracial marriage in the 1960s, with just a fresh coat of paint.

Them: "You're allowed to marry anyone you want, so long as they're not a different race."
You: "You're allowed to marry anyone you want, so long as they're a different gender."

How, logically, can one be discrimination and the other not be? Parse it for me. Prove it.

You want to legalize something which isn't legal currently and change the vehicle by which people are joined in marriage - something founded in the religious beliefs you seem to hate - and if you're not allowed you cry discrimination when if fact your wanting to *change* what has existed for centuries and what impacts other people.

You have yet to show any harm to straight relationships that would stem from allowing gays access to the same rights and privileges you so desperately seek to horde.

Wow - I really missed that, please point to the government specifically calling your relationship bad - as in a law, in some exact words.

Literalism is for the simple-minded. Does not the fact that my relationship (err, not that I have one at present, actually) would have been a prosecutable offense until last June not demonstrate a pejorative disposition? That my relationship would bar me from being able to adopt children doesn't represent a moral judgment against me on the state's part?

I guess we have seperate definitions of what *civil discussion* means,

You're right, I flew off the handle a bit. I'm sorry. I was just outraged to discover that your "reasoning" for wanting to continue the hateful discrimination faced by gays in America boiled down to not wanting to be bothered to register your wife's gender on a form. I mean, that's just selfish.

I'm insulted that you couldn't come up with something at least rudimentarily persuasive or cogent.

[quote]Are you implying that, because anyone for whatever reason doesn't want the definition of marriage changed to mean any two persons as opposed to a male and a female, they, therefore must hate gays?[/quote]

Until someone can provide me with a coherent, logical, secular reason as to why marriage between gays would be a bad thing, we must assume that opposition to gay equality is driven by nothing but bigotry and malice, probably ingrained through religion.

[quote]Wow, marriage is like your holy grail.[/quote]

Actually, yes. Marriage is the holy grail.

Like I said, you're close minded, no chance of even remotely seeing how your goal impacts me and my relationship

Because you have yet to show that it does. Your argument is based on the fact that somehow if I were to marry another man, my marriage would in some way dilute yours. IE, the same argument made by whites that if a white and black married it would dilute the sanctity of white marriage. But like your intellectual forebearers, you have not provided a piece of evidence, other than to restate different ways that it would make you feel like your marriage was diluted.

How would my marrying another man dilute your marriage? How, specifically and in what measurable way? Not "feelings." Not annoyances. In what substantive, tangible way would gay marriage harm straight marriage?

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(8 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…