There is a lot of bias against homosexuality in the United States. Jokes, stereotypes, laws, whatever - none of it makes any sense to me, but maybe I am in the minority. Maybe there are legitimate reasons for banning same-sex marriage in the majority of the United States. Maybe homosexuals have a negative impact on society. Maybe God (if God does indeed exist) doesn’t support same-sex relationships. Maybe God is going to send me to Hell for writing this. And if that’s the case, then so be it; however, I find society’s current stance on same-sex relationships absolutely appalling.
As for the jokes and stereotypes and things like that, I don’t give a $#$#. I apologize to all who disagree, but really, I don’t care about meaningless comments like that. I’ve been made fun of everything imaginable since I was born (“you #$##ing Jew”, being skinny, being a nerd, etc.), and I don’t give a damn. People are always going to criticize others for whatever reason - it’s human nature.
What I do have a serious problem with is the current legislature that prevents same-sex marriage. What the hell is the point of that? I’d like to break it down like this:
Reasons for same-sex marriage: Let people do what they want.
Reasons against same-sex marriage: None.
Now, obviously when you enter into a society (whether you are born into it and choose to stay, or enter into one yourself), you can’t do everything you want because you have to consider the livelihood of other people in the community.
Let’s say you were going to enter into a new society with 100 people that you knew. Would your initial doctrine be, “no one should steal from anyone else, no one should kill anyone else, oh, and by the way, no one should marry someone of the same sex”.
Now, I know a lot of people dislike homosexual behavior, but I’ve never had anyone tell me why. For those of you out there (and there must be a lot of you), I’m begging you to tell me. Give me a reason why homosexual behavior harms others. I thought it was absolutely fantastic when Tim Hardaway said he “hates gay people” in 2007. I completely disagree with him, but I thought that moment was awesome because most people aren’t willing to admit it on a public stage. Of course, his rationale for hating gays was “it’s not right”. Maybe the ridiculous and unfounded amount of criticism he faced for being honest prevented him from making further comments. Tim Hardaway: if you are reading this, I’d really like to talk to you about your opinions.
For those who disagree with homosexuality, let me ask you this. Could you look someone who has a same-sex preference in the eye and say “No, you shouldn’t be able to do that, I don’t agree with homosexuality. You're harming society. I don’t care if a same-sex marriage would make you happy.”? Maybe you could, and I would respect you for that. But, personally, I think it would be much easier to look someone in the eye and say, “You shouldn’t kill another person”.
For those who believe in the “religious argument” against homosexuals (just for clarification, I have no idea what the religious argument is because I don’t follow any religious doctrines), why not let God judge those who decide to enter into same-sex relationships. Who are you to prevent someone else from being happy? Are you God? If it is of no consequence to you or society, should you have power over the decision of a homosexual to get married to another homosexual?
So that's it. If you disagree with same-sex marriage, I'd like to hear your point of view. I know 46/50 states' worth of you are out there, so let me know.
I fully expect to receive comments like “you’re gay” after writing this.
Well, I'm sure this will open a can of worms. Hopefully, any discussion can remain civil on this relatively small blog, but oftentimes the internet allows for people to write vitrol which they would not dare say if this conversation occured around a coffee table.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I want to get this out there: I do not believe ANYONE, straight or gay, has a fundamental right to marriage. If we want to get into a discussion on the nature of rights, that is a different discussion. But, personally, I'm sick of being told that outlawing gay marriage is "depriving people of civil rights."
Historically, marriage was primarily a religious ceremony/sacrament, entered into for a variety of reasons; chief among those reasons was the propogation of the species. Everyone reading this knows that there was no "separation of Church and State" for the vast majority of human history. That is the basis the origin of the State's involvement in marriage.
Now, as the role of the State evolved into our modern understanding, these vestiges were maintained for a variety of reasons - primarily, hundreds of years of law involving the ownership of marital property, issues of decent and intestecy, providing for widows, etc. These are very real concerns for the State, which requires some sort of offical State recognition of non-blood relationships, or, specifically, marriage. Modernity has compounded many of these issues as we get into life-sustaining decisions where one is incapacititated, etc.
Now, hopefully the preceding will avoid the argument that "the State should just stay out of marriage." The State, for better or worse, needs to be involved in some form for relationships.
The question then arises: how should the State involve itself? Well, you get into thorny issues here. However, as I see it, most legislation regulates morality. We have murder laws, as you point out Jon. Those laws are, at their most basic, moral judgments that murder is bad. That is a very common judgment, but it is one nonetheless. Some people derive that value from a utilitarian angle, some derive it from a Holy Writ, and I'm sure there are a thousand other approaches to arrive at that conclusion. Are some routes more valid than others? If so, which ones?
Please, no one accuse me of equating gay marriage to murder. I hope you can see that I am merely pointing out that our own personal moral code - from wherever it comes - informs our voting and thus our laws.
Now, I think there are a variety of public policy reasons for maintaining marriage as a union of a man and a woman.
First, I do buy the "slippery slope" argument against it. Someone please give me a logical argument explaining why we should allow gay marriage yet prohibit bigamy. For the life of me, I cannot find one. I'm serious about this. If you can present me with clear, valid reasoning, I'm willing to give up this objection.
Second, I believe marriage as a very specific meaning, and inherent in the word is the recogniztion that it can only occur between a man and a woman. Redefining words cheapens them (see: CS Lewis, Discussion of 'Gentleman,' Mere Christianity). Truth be told, I do not have a big problem with the creation of non-marriage "domestic unions" or whathaveyou, provided the legislation is properly written; it is an entire other post to explain what I think "properly written" means.
Third, one of the primary reasons, in addition to the legal aspects discussed above, the State remains invovled in marriage is to help promote stable family life. Does anyone disagree that, generally, the ideal rearing enviornment for children is in a household with their biological parents? Of course there are exceptions to this, but they are just that; exceptions. And I'm not saying single parents or homosexual couples cannot do a good job raising children. I think they can, as I've seen it done in my own family. But I think that, looking at it from a macro level, married biological parents do a better job. You learn things about the way the two sexes interact and differ in a two-parent household that is difficult if not impossible to learn otherwise.
There are a few other reasons, but this is getting long as is, and I need to go accomplish some things with my day.
Just to touch on the religious arguments...
As I discussed earlier, our personal beliefs on morality, wherever they stem from, inform our voting and our laws. If you'd like me to offer the objections to homosexual marriage in the Catholic tradition, I am happy to do so, but I expect there are many others out there who can provide them much more eloquently than I.
"Who are you to prevent someone else from being happy?"
Is facilitating happiness the end of government? I would say no.
"Are you God?"
Not even close.
"If it is of no consequence to you or society..."
Hopefully, I've shown that it is of consequence to society for a variety of reasons - legal, policy, etc. - and of consequence to individuals as a result of their moral code. Of course, this returns us to that existential question: what is a proper moral code?
"[S]hould you have power over the decision of a homosexual to get married to another homosexual?"
Like I said, we have power via our system of government, and it necessarily involves the State as the entire idea of a marriage is a request for recognizition of the State. Why should "we," as a society empowering the State, accept something we find fundamentally wrong?
I have no problem with gay sex if that is what two people would like to do. I agree - that really is none of my business.
Thanks Mike. Obviously, this is a very touchy subject so I commend you for sharing your thoughts.
ReplyDeleteOn the institution of marriage - I agree with you. I don't think it's a basic human right. Marriage is a creation of our society. Personally, if I am in a relationship that I think is going to last forever, I don't need a rubber stamp saying I'm "married". I think it's more a structure devised for financial purposes, but whatever, I don't know enough about it to get into detail.
The problem I have is that heterosexuals have the right to get married in our State and many of them choose to exercise that right. Homosexuals, for whatever reason the State has decided, do not, and I think that many of them would like to have that right. I think the institution of marriage is dumb, but from what I gather, most people consider it to be extremely important.
I think part of the problem may be that there is a disconnect between the "fairy tale" relationship-driven definition of marriage and whatever the State defines it as.
On bigamy - I don't mind allowing people to have thousands of marital partners. I don't think that harms anyone else just like I don't think same-sex marriage harms anyone. I don't think a human marrying a dog harms society, but that's just how I look at it.
On parenting - I have a couple thoughts about this:
1. I don't think a 2-person marriage and children go hand-in-hand. People have children without being married. Kids, as you mentioned, can have 1 or no parents and be raised by someone else. Married couples don't always have kids, etc.
2. I'm not sure what the ideal parent/child relationship is because I'm not sure if I can objectively evaluate the job of another parent. In the end, it's just going to be my opinion, and what do I know? I could say to myself "that child is obnoxious; his parents must be awful", but, really, I know nothing about the parents, how they have raised their child, or what kind of effort they have put in.
3. Children aren't solely influenced by their parents.
4. I don't think the sex of a person is going to affect their parenting ability (maybe it does in some cases that I am not thinking of). I would think it's more personality driven. Also, what about the biological composition of the child and genetics?
5. I don't know if this point is valid, I think it's probably not and I could be making an absolute fool of myself (feel free to tell me that), but turning your question around a little bit, are the ideal parents for a homosexual child a heterosexual couple or a homosexual couple?
Finally, I understand that if we as a state think that same-sex marriage is fundamentally wrong, then it makes logical sense that there would be limitations against it. What I am trying to figure out is if the State really thinks that and why. Historically it has but I feel like things are changing.
Based on my conversations with people I know, the majority of them have always told me that they do not oppose same-sex marriage. Maybe some of them are lying to me or maybe I just know people that are in the minority.
Because of the overwhelming response I have heard for allowing same-sex marriage, part of me has always thought that (i) the laws in this arena are antiquated and out of touch with the current public will, (ii) people elected into positions of power are not listening to their constituents, or (iii) it takes a ridiculously long time to change a law.
Good points. I'll try to take them in order, at least when I have something to say.
ReplyDelete"On bigamy - I don't mind allowing people to have thousands of marital partners. I don't think that harms anyone else just like I don't think same-sex marriage harms anyone. I don't think a human marrying a dog harms society, but that's just how I look at it."
I see both such arrangments as harming social order and harmony. If people have multiple marital partners, it is likey, due to pure demographics, that there will be some overlap in the relationships. Should that overlap occur...well, what are the common reactions to cheating within the context of a relationship? I worry this would simply beget violence. That is one issue (of many) I have with bigamy. Regarding animal marriage, it is an illogical concept. No religion with any serious following I'm aware of believes such marriage is proper. Further, since animals are recognized as property under the law and thus cannot own property, etc., what on earth would be the state interest in recognizing such a marriage?
"1. I don't think a 2-person marriage and children go hand-in-hand. People have children without being married. Kids, as you mentioned, can have 1 or no parents and be raised by someone else. Married couples don't always have kids, etc."
I agree that people have children without being married, and vice-versa, but this is clearly not the norm. Throughout human history, in all societies, it was a man and a woman who comprised a family unit in order to procreate.
"2. I'm not sure what the ideal parent/child relationship is because I'm not sure if I can objectively evaluate the job of another parent. In the end, it's just going to be my opinion, and what do I know? I could say to myself "that child is obnoxious; his parents must be awful", but, really, I know nothing about the parents, how they have raised their child, or what kind of effort they have put in."
Well, two-parent households have been shown, via academic studies, to raise children with better marks in school, fewer diagnosed psychological issues, etc. Now, you may not put stock in those studies - I am skeptical of most conclusions in the psychological realm myself, but that is neither here nor there. However, I believe there is at least one benefit to a two-parent household which appears on the face: two parents means that there is a much greater possibility of oversight and guidance. Economically, it is a more beneficial arrangement, and thus decreases the necessity of working a large portion of time. I'm making the assumption that greater parental involvement is a positive, generally.
"3. Children aren't solely influenced by their parents."
Of course they aren't. However, they primarily are, and are exposed to their parents more than any other individual through the time they leave the home.
"4. I don't think the sex of a person is going to affect their parenting ability (maybe it does in some cases that I am not thinking of). I would think it's more personality driven. Also, what about the biological composition of the child and genetics?"
You're assuming sex and personality are seperate concepts. Horomonally, men and women are different, and those differences have a real impact on personality, etc. And even if we ignore biological differences, you'd have to agree that there are different social roles played by men and women, with a large amount of depth and nuance. I don't know if I follow you regarding genetics. Are you saying "the kid is predisposed to XYZ?"
"5. I don't know if this point is valid, I think it's probably not and I could be making an absolute fool of myself (feel free to tell me that), but turning your question around a little bit, are the ideal parents for a homosexual child a heterosexual couple or a homosexual couple?"
I don't think you're making a fool of yourself, but I do think you're stepping a bit far out. How do we know if a child is homosexual? The entire question of nature/nurture has yet to be solved. If homosexuality is purely caused by a "gay gene," and upbringing and enviornmental causes have NO impact upon it...maybe a homosexual couple is the best place for a homosexual child. However, I don't think that the child's sexual orientation per se makes a heterosexual couple less fit to be parents. Learning the relationship between the sexes is just as important for gay people as straight, is it not?
"Based on my conversations with people I know, the majority of them have always told me that they do not oppose same-sex marriage. Maybe some of them are lying to me or maybe I just know people that are in the minority."
Well, I'll ask this: who are you having conversations with? If it is BC people and NYC people, you're looking at a very thin subset of (1) the American public and (2) humanity. Further, my guess is that most of the people you have these conversations with are our age. Most of us (myself very much included) don't know shit yet. Ask anyone over the age of 35, and I'm sure they have a list of things they "knew" or "believed" in their 20s which they laugh at now.
"Because of the overwhelming response I have heard for allowing same-sex marriage, part of me has always thought that (i) the laws in this arena are antiquated and out of touch with the current public will, (ii) people elected into positions of power are not listening to their constituents, or (iii) it takes a ridiculously long time to change a law."
Maybe. But how many states have passed marriage amendments preventing the establishment of gay marriage? Since a large portion of this country as done such, it seems like those three potential reasons don't work. Obviously (1) people WANT to prevent gay marriage and (2) it isn't that hard to change a law, as they have all been done this decade. Further, it isn't popular sentiment changing laws to allow gay marriage in this country, but rather judicial fiat. I almost always consider the latter dangerous.
I don't think the state should have anything to do with marriage. This is primarily a religious convention. The government can stick to identifying civil unions, but the word marriage has too many other connotations.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, the idea that allowing marriage for homosexuals is a slippery slope leading to interspecies relationships or pedophilia is inaccurate, I think. I'm pretty sure that nobody will ever validate any relationship in which all parties involved do not possess the intellectual or emotional capacity to fully understand what they're undertaking.
Also, well before children leave middle school, their peers become their primary influences rather than their parents. I think the influence of homosexual parents would be very limited as a result.
Mike - on the old vs. young thing. Obviously as a person's mind develops and they go through different experiences, that person's opinions may or may not change. I definitely feel that - I look back at what I wrote in high school and I say to myself "what the $#$# was that"? I might look back at this blog with disgust in 5 years. As far as "knowing", I don't think that anyone (whether they are 90 years old or 20 years old) knows shit, as you put it. Does anyone "know" if God exists? Does anyone know what is going to happen when they die? If there is a moral code that humans are supposed to follow, does anyone know what that is? I think these are important questions I think about everyday (and I see my beliefs changing about them constantly), but I know I'm never going to know anything more about them than I do now.
ReplyDeleteSome time ago - people thought slavery was a good idea. Philosophers I respect (but disagree with on this point) thought blacks were inferior to whites in many ways. There are probably some who still think that, but the overall public opinion seems to have changed.
On this issue of same-sex marriage, I think the public opinion is at least beginning to change. I feel it. But I could be wrong. Only time will tell.
Like I said before, I personally don't care about marriage. Means nothing to me (although I'm happy to see the joy that it has brought to my friends, parents, etc.), but I'm trying to understand both sides of the fight, and I think you have helped me out a lot with that.