-
If you support rights for gay EXCEPT marriage Consider this article
Ask just about anyone. They'll all tell you they're in favor of equal rights for homosexuals. Just name the situation, and ask. They'll all say, yes, gays should have the same rights in housing, jobs, public accomodations, and should have equal access to government benefits, equal protection of the law, etcetera, etcetera.
Then you get to gay marriage.
And that's when all this talk of equality stops dead cold.
More than half of all people in the United States oppose gay marriage, even though three fourths are otherwise supportive of gay rights. This means that many of the same people who are even passionately in favor of gay rights oppose gays on this one issue.
Why all the passion?
It's because there is a lot of misunderstanding about what homosexuality really is, as well as the erroneous assumption that gay people enjoy the same civil rights protections as everyone else. There are also a lot of stereotypes about gay relationships, and even a great deal of misunderstanding of what marriage itself is all about and what its purpose is.
The purpose of this essay, then, is to clear up a few of these misunderstandings and discuss some of facts surrounding gay relationships and marriage, gay and straight.
First, let's discuss what gay relationships are really all about. The stereotype has it that gays are promiscuous, unable to form lasting relationships, and the relationships that do form are shallow and uncommitted. And gays do have such relationships!
But the important fact to note is that just like in straight society, where such relationships also exist, they are a small minority, and exist primarily among the very young. Indeed, one of the most frequent complaints of older gay men is that it is almost impossible to find quality single men to get into a relationship with, because they're already all 'taken!'
If you attend any gay event, such as a Pride festival or a PFLAG convention, you'll find this to be true. As gays age and mature, just like their straight cohorts, they begin to appreciate and find their way into long-term committed relationships.
The values that such gay couples exhibit in their daily lives are often indistinguishable from those of their straight neighbors. They're loyal to their mates, are monogamous, devoted partners. They value and participate in family life, are committed to making their neighborhoods and communities safer and better places to live, and honor and abide by the law. Many make valuable contributions to their communities, serving on school boards, volunteering in community charities, and trying to be good citizens. In doing so, they take full advantage of their relationship to make not only their own lives better, but those of their neighbors as well.
A benefit to heterosexual society of gay marriage is the fact that the commitment of a marriage means the participants are discouraged from promiscous sex. This has the advantage of slowing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, which know no sexual orientation and are equal opportunity destroyers.
These benefits of gay marriage have changed the attitudes of the majority of people in Denmark and other countries where various forms of gay marriage have been legal for years. Polling results now show that most people there now recognize that the benefits far outweigh the trivial costs, and that far from threatening heterosexual marriage, gay marriage has actually strenghtened it.
So, having established the value of gay marriage, why are people so opposed to it?
Many of the reasons offered for opposing gay marriage are based on the assumption that gays have a choice in who they can feel attracted to, and the reality is quite different. Many people actually believe that gays could simply choose to be heterosexual if they wished. But the reality is that very few do have a choice -- any more than very few heterosexuals could choose which sex to find themselves attracted to. Additionally, many people continue to believe the propaganda from right-wing religious organizations that homosexuality is about nothing but sex, considering it to be merely a sexual perversion. The reality is that homosexuality is multidimensional, and is much more about love and affection than it is about sex. And this is what gay relationships are based on -- mutual attraction, love and affection. Sex, in a committed gay relationship, is merely a means of expressing that love, just the same as it is for heterosexuals. Being gay is much more profound than simply a sexual relationship; being gay is part of that person's core indentity, and goes right the very center of his being. It's like being black in a society of whites, or a blonde European in a nation of black-haired Asians. Yes, being gay is just that profound to the person who is. This is something that few heterosexuals can understand unless they are part of a minority themselves.
-
Re: If you support rights for gay EXCEPT marriage Consider this article
The Arguments Against Gay Marriage
Well, of course there are a lot of reasons being offered these days for opposing gay marriage, and they are usually variations on a few well-established themes. Interestingly, a court in Hawaii has recently heard them all. And it found, after due deliberation, that they didn't hold water.
Here's a summary:
Marriage is an institution between one man and one woman. Well, that's the most often heard argument, one even codified in a recently passed U.S. federal law. Yet it is easily the weakest. Who says what marriage is and by whom it is to be defined? The married? The marriable? Isn't that kind of like allowing a banker to decide who is going to own the money in stored in his vaults? It seems to me that justice demands that if the straight community cannot show a compelling reason to deny the institution of marriage to gay people, it shouldn't be denied. And such simple, nebulous declarations, with no real moral argument behind them, are hardly compelling reasons. They're really more like an expression of prejudice than any kind of a real argument. The concept of not denying people their rights unless you can show a compelling reason to deny them is the very basis of the American ideal of human rights.
Same-sex couples aren't the optimum environment in which to raise children. That's an interesting one, in light of who society does allow to get married and bring children into their marriage. Check it out: murderers, convicted felons of all sorts, even known child molesters are all allowed to freely marry and procreate, and do so every day, with hardly a second thought, much less a protest, by these same critics. So if children are truly the priority here, why is this allowed? The fact is that many gay couples raise children, adopted and occasionally their own from failed attempts at heterosexual marriages. Lots and lots of scientific studies have shown that the outcomes of the children raised in the homes of gay and lesbian couples are just as good as those of straight couples. The differences have been shown again and again to be insignificant. Psychologists tell us that what makes the difference is the love and commitment of the parents, not their gender. The studies are very clear about that. And gay people are as capable of loving children as fully as anyone else.
Gay relationships are immoral. Says who? The Bible? Somehow, I always thought that freedom of religion implied the right to freedom from religion as well. The Bible has absolutely no standing in American law, as was made clear by the intent of the First Amendment (and as was very explicitly stated by the founding fathers in their first treaty, the Treaty of Tripoli, in 1791) and because it doesn't, no one has the right to impose rules anyone else simply because of something they percieve to be a moral injunction mandated by the Bible. Not all world religions have a problem with homosexuality; many sects of Buddhism, for example, celebrate gay relationships freely and would like to have the authority to make them legal marriages. In that sense, their religious freedom is being infringed. If one believes in religious freedom, the recognition that opposition to gay marriage is based on religious arguments is reason enough to discount this argument.
Marriages are for procreation and ensuring the continuation of the species. The proponents of this argument are really hard pressed to explain, if that's the case, why infertile couples are allowed to marry. I, for one, would love to be there when the proponent of such an argument is to explain to his post-menopausal mother or impotent father that since they cannot procreate, they must now surrender their wedding rings and sleep in separate bedrooms. That would be fun to watch! Again, such an argument fails to persuade based on the kinds of marriages society does allow routinely, without even a second thought, and why it really allows them - marriage is about love, sharing and commitment; procreation is, when it comes right down to it, in reality a purely secondary function.
The proponents of the procreation and continuation-of-the-species argument are going to have a really hard time persuading me that the human species is in any real danger of dying out anytime soon through lack of reproductive success.
If ten percent of all the human race that is gay were to suddenly, totally refrain from procreation, I think it is safe to say that the world would probably be significantly better off. One of the world's most serious problems is overpopulation and the increasing anarchy and human misery that is resulting from it. Seems to me that gays would be doing the world a really big favor by not bringing more hungry mouths into a world that is already critically overburdened ecologically by the sheer number of humans it must support. So what is the useful purpose to be served in mindlessly encouraging yet more human reproduction?
Same-sex marriage would threaten the institution of marriage. Well, that one's contradictory right on the face of it. Threaten marriage? By allowing people to marry? That doesn't sound very logical to me. If you allow gay people to marry each other, you no longer encourage them to marry people to whom they feel little attraction, with whom they most often cannot relate adequately sexually, bringing innocent children into already critically stressed marriages. By allowing gay marriage, you would reduce the number of opposite-sex marriages that end up in the divorce courts. If it is the stability of the institution of heterosexual marriage that worries you, then consider that no one would require you or anyone else to participate in a gay marriage. You would still have freedom of choice, of choosing which kind of marriage to participate in -- something more than what you have now. And speaking of divorce -- to argue that the institution of marriage is worth preserving at the cost of requiring involuntary participants to remain in it is a better argument for reforming divorce laws than proscribing gay marriage.
Marriage is traditionally a heterosexual institution. This is morally the weakest argument. Slavery was also a traditional institution, based on traditions that went back to the very beginnings of human history - further back, even, than marriage as we know it. But by the 19th century, humanity had generally recognized the evils of that institution, and has since made a serious effort to abolish it. Why not recognize the truth -- that there is no moral ground on which to support the tradition of marriage as a strictly heterosexual institution, and remove the restriction?
Same-sex marriage is an untried social experiment. The American critics of same-sex marriage betray their provincialism with this argument. The fact is that a form of gay marriage has been legal in Denmark since 1989 (full marriage rights except for adoption rights and church weddings, and a proposal now exists in the Danish parliament to allow both of those rights as well), and most of the rest of Scandinavia from not long after. Full marriage rights have existed in many Dutch cities for several years, and it was recently made legal nationwide, including the word "marriage" to describe it. In other words, we have a long-running "experiment" to examine for its results -- which have uniformly been positive. Opposition to the Danish law was led by the clergy (much the same as in the States). A survey conducted at the time revealed that 72 percent of Danish clergy were opposed to the law. It was passed anyway, and the change in the attitude of the clergy there has been dramatic -- a survey conducted in 1995 indicated that 89 percent of the Danish clergy now admit that the law is a good one and has had many beneficial effects, including a reduction in suicide, a reduction in the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and in promiscuity and infidelity among gays. Far from leading to the "destruction of Western civilization" as some critics (including the Southern Baptist, Mormon and Catholic churches among others) have warned, the result of the "experiment" has actually been civilizing and strengthening, not just to the institution of marriage, but to society as a whole. So perhaps we should accept the fact that someone else has already done the "experiment" and accept the results as positive. The fact that many churches are not willing to accept this evidence says more about the churches than it does about gay marriage.
Same-sex marriage would start us down a "slippery slope" towards legalized incest, bestial marriage, polygamy and all kinds of other horrible consequences. A classic example of the reductio ad absurdum fallacy, it is calculated to create fear in the mind of anyone hearing the argument. It is, of course, absolutely without any merit based on experience. If the argument were true, wouldn't that have already happened in countries where forms of legalized gay marriage already exist? Wouldn't they have 'slid' towards legalized incest and bestial marriage? The reality is that a form of gay marriage has been legal in Scandinavian countries for over many years, and no such legalization has happened, nor has there been a clamor for it. It's a classic scare tactic - making the end scenario so scary and so horrible that the first step should never be taken. Such are the tactics of the fear and hatemongers.
If concern over the "slippery slope" were the real motive behind this argument, the advocate of this line of reasoning would be equally vocal about the fact that today, even as you read this, convicted murderers, child molesters, known pedophiles, drug pushers, pimps, black market arms dealers, etc., are quite free to marry, and are doing so. Where's the outrage? Of course there isn't any, and that lack of outrage betrays their real motives. This is an anti-gay issue and not a pro marriage issue.
-
Re: If you support rights for gay EXCEPT marriage Consider this article
If concern over the "slippery slope" were the real motive behind this argument, the advocate of this line of reasoning would be equally vocal about the fact that today, even as you read this, convicted murderers, child molesters, known pedophiles, drug pushers, pimps, black market arms dealers, etc., are quite free to marry, and are doing so. Where's the outrage? Of course there isn't any, and that lack of outrage betrays their real motives. This is an anti-gay issue and not a pro marriage issue.
Granting gays the right to marry is a "special" right. Since ninety percent of the population already have the right to marry the informed, consenting adult of their choice, and would even consider that right a fundamental, constitutionally protected right, since when does extending it to the remaining ten percent constitute a "special" right to that remaining ten percent? As Justice Kennedy observed in his opinion overturning Colorado's infamous Amendment 2 (Roemer vs. Evans), many gay and lesbian Americans are, under current law, denied civil rights protections that others either don't need or assume that everyone else along with themselves, already have. The problem with all that special rights talk is that it proceeds from that very assumption, that because of all the civil rights laws in this country that everyone is already equal, so therefore any rights gay people are being granted must therefore be special. That is most assuredly not the case, especially regarding marriage and all the legal protections that go along with it.
Sodomy should be illegal and was until very recently. Ah, the ol' sodomy law argument! Why was sodomy illegal in so many states for so long? Because conservative religionists (at whose behest those laws were enacted in the first place) historically blocked or vigorously resisted attempts to repeal them in every state, and were horrified when the U.S. Supreme Court recently overturned the ones that remained.
Gay marriage would mean forcing businesses to provide benefits to same-sex couples on the same basis as opposite-sex couples. While this may or may not be true (based primarily on state labor laws), the reality is that many businesses already do offer these benefits to gay couples, and for sound business reasons. And experience has shown that when they do, the effect on their costs for offering these benefits is minimal - very rarely does the cost of benefits offered to gay couples cause the business' benefits costs to rise by more than 1.5%. This trivial cost is usually far more than offset by the fact that the company is seen as being progressive for having offered these benefits - making its stock much more attractive to socially progressive mutual funds and rights-conscious pension funds and individual investors, and thus increasing upwards pressure on its price. This is why so many corporations, including most of the Fortune 500, already offer these benefits without being required to do so - it's just good business sense.
-
Re: If you support rights for gay EXCEPT marriage Consider this article
Gay marriage would force churches to marry gay couples when they have a moral objection to doing so. This argument, usually advanced by churches that oppose gay marriage, is simply not true. There is nothing in any marriage law, existing or proposed, anywhere in the United States, that does or would have the effect of requiring any church to marry any couple they do not wish to marry. Churches already can refuse any couple they wish, and for any reason that suits them, which many often do, and that would not change. Some churches continue to refuse to marry interracial couples, others interreligious couples, and a few refuse couples with large age disparities and for numerous other reasons. Gay marriage would not change any church's right to refuse to sanctify any marriage entirely as they wish - it would simply offer churches the opportunity to legally marry gay couples if they wish, as some have expressed the desire to do - the freedom of religion would actually be expanded, not contracted.
The real reasons people oppose gay marriage
So far, we've examined the reasons everyone talks about for opposing gay marriage. Now, let's examine now the real reasons, deep down inside, that people oppose it, hate it, even fear it:
Just not comfortable with the idea. The fact the people aren't comfortable with the idea stems primarily from the fact that for many years, society has promoted the idea that a marriage between members of the same sex is ludicrous, mainly because of the objections raised above. But if those objections don't make sense, neither does the idea that gay marriage is necessarily ludicrous. Societies have long recognized that allowing civil rights to certain groups may offend some, and at times, even the majority. But that is why constitutional government was established -- to ensure that powerless, unpopular minorities are still protected from the tyranny of the majority. Simple discomfort with a proposal is no reasonable basis for not allowing it - how many Southern whites were once uncomfortable with allowing blacks to ride in the front of the bus, or allowing black children to attend the same schools as their own, or drink at the same drinking fountain? Half a century ago, those ideas were just as unthinkable - yet nowadays, hardly anybody sees them as a problem, seeing the fears as nothing more than racism, pure and simple.
It offends everything religion stands for. Whose religion? Many mainstream Christian denominations, to be sure, and definitely most branches of Islam and Orthodox Judaism, but outside those, most religions are unopposed to gay marriage, and many actually favor it. When the Mormon church arrogantly claimed to represent all religions in the Baehr vs. Lewin trial in Hawaii, the principal Buddhist sect in that state made it very clear that the Mormon church didn't represent them, and made it very clear that they support the right of gay couples to marry. That particular Buddhist sect claims many more members in Hawaii than does the Mormon church. In a society that claims to offer religious freedom, the use of the power of the state to enforce private religious sensibilities is an affront to all who would claim the right to worship according to the dictates of their own conscience.
Marriage is a sacred institution. This is, of course, related to the motive above. But it is really subtly different. It's based on the assumption that the state has the responsibility to "sanctify" marriages - a fundamentally religious idea. Here we're dealing with people trying to enforce their religious doctrines on someone else, but by doing it through weakening the separation of church and state, by undermining the Bill of Rights. Not that there's anything new about this, of course. But the attempt itself runs against the grain of everything the First Amendment stands for - one does not truly have freedom of religion if one does not have the right to freedom from religion as well. It would seem to me that anyone who feels that the sanctity of their marriage is threatened by a gay couple down the street having the right to marry, is mighty insecure about their religion and their marriage anyway.
Gay sex is unnatural. This argument, often encoded in the very name of sodomy statutes ("crime against nature"), betrays a considerable ignorance of behavior in the animal kingdom. The fact is that among the approximately 1500 animal species whose behavior has been extensively studied, homosexual behavior in animals has been described in at least 450 of those species. It runs the gamut, too, ranging from occasional displays of affection to life-long pair bonding including sex and even adopting and raising orphans, going so far as the rejection by force of potential heterosexual partners, even when in heat. The reality is that it is so common that it begs an explanation, and sociobiologists have proposed a wide variety of explanations to account for it. The fact that it is so common also means that it clearly has evolutionary significance, which applies as much to humans as it does to other animal species.
-
Re: If you support rights for gay EXCEPT marriage Consider this article
Making love to another man betrays everything that is masculine. Well, I've known (and dated) plenty of very masculine gay men in my day, including champion bull-riding rodeo cowboys and a Hell's Angel biker type, who, if you suggested he is a limp-wristed fairy, would likely rip your head off and hand it to you. There was a long-honored tradition of gay relationships among the tough and macho cowboys of the Old West, and many diaries still exist detailing their loving and tender relationships out on the range, and the many sacrifices they made for each other. Plenty of masculine, respected movies stars are gay - indeed, Rock Hudson was considered the very archtype of a masculine man. Came as quite a shock to a lot of macho-men to find out he was gay! So what's wrong with all these kinds of men expressing love for each other? Why is that so horrible about it? A society that devalues love devalues that upon which civilized society itself is based - love and commitment.
The core fear here is the fear of rape and a loss of control or status as a masculine man. This is instinctual and goes right to the core of our being as primates. If you examine what happens in many animal species, especially displays of dominance in other primate species, dominance displays often have sexual overtones. When, for example, in many species of primates, a subordinate male is faced with aggression by a dominant male, the dominant male will bite the subordinate, causing him to squeal in pain, drop the food or the female and present his rump. This is an act of submission, and it is saying to the whole troupe that the subordinate is just that - subordinate.
This happens in humans just as it does in other primates. It is the cause of homosexual rape in prisons. Homosexual intercourse in prisons is not an act of sex as much as it is an expression of dominance and a means of control. Nearly all of the men who aggressively rape other men in a prison setting actually revert to (often promiscuous) heterosexual sex once they're on the outside.
So is this something straight men should fear from gay men? Well, you can relax, all you straight guys. You've nothing to worry about. The vast majority of gay men prefer sex in the same emotional setting most of you do - as a part of the expression of mutual love, affection and commitment. We're not out to rape you or force you into a subordinate position. The majority of gay men don't want sex with you because we're looking for the same thing in a sexual relationship that you look for - the love and affection of a devoted partner. Since we're not likely to get that from you, you're not desirable to us and you have nothing to fear from us. The small minority of us (and it's a very small minority - less than 3%) who do enjoy sex with straight men understand your fears and are not going to have sex with you unless it's clearly and completely understood on both sides to be on a peer-to-peer basis and your requirement for full and complete consent and need for discretion is honored.
The thought of gay sex is repulsive. Well, it will come as some surprise to a lot of heterosexuals to find out that, to a lot of gays, the thought of heterosexual sex is repulsive! But does that mean the discomfort of some gays to heterosexual couples should be a reason to deny heterosexuals the right to marry? I don't think so, even though the thought of a man kissing a woman is rather repulsive to many homosexuals! Well then, why should it work just one way? Besides, the same sexual practices that gays engage in are often engaged in by heterosexual couples anyway - prompting the ever-popular gay T-shirt: "SO-DO-MY -- SO DO MY neighbors, SO DO MY friends."
They might recruit. The fear of recruitment is baseless because it is based on a false premise - that gay people recruit straight people to become gay. We don't. We don't recruit because we know from our own experience that sexual orientation is inborn, and can't be changed. Indeed, the attempts by psychologists, counselors and religious therapy and support groups to change sexual orientation have all uniformly met with failure - the studies that have been done of these attempts at "therapeutic" intervention have never been shown to have any statistically significant results in the manner intended, and most have been shown to have emotionally damaging consequences. So the notion that someone can be changed from straight to gay is just as unlikely. Yet there remains that deep, dark fear that somehow, someone might get "recruited." And that baseless fear is often used by bigots to scare people into opposing gay rights in general, as well as gay marriage.
The core cause of this fear is the result of the fact that many homophobes, including most virulent, violent homophobes are themselves repressed sexually, often with same sex attractions. One of the recent studies done at the University of Georgia among convicted killers of gay men has shown that the overwhelmingly large percentage of them (more than 70%) exhibit sexual arousal when shown scenes of gay sex. The core fear, then, for the homophobe is that he himself might be gay, and might be forced to face that fact. The homophobia can be as internalized as it is externalized - bash the queer and you don't have to worry about being aroused by him.
-
Re: If you support rights for gay EXCEPT marriage Consider this article
The opposition to gay marriage stems ultimately from a deep-seated homophobia in American culture, borne out of religious prejudice. While many Americans do not realize that that homophobia exists to the extent that it does, it is a very real part of every gay person's life, just like racism is a very real part of every black person's life. It is there, it is pervasive, and it has far more serious consequences for American society than most Americans realize, not just for gay people, but for society in general.
Why This Is A Serious Civil Rights Issue
When gay people say that this is a civil rights issue, we are referring to matters of civil justice, which often can be quite serious - and can have life-damaging, even life-threatening consequences.
One of these is the fact that in most states, we cannot make medical decisions for our partners in an emergency. Instead, the hospitals are usually forced by state laws to go to the families who may have been estranged from us for decades, who are often hostile to us, and can and frequently do, totally ignore our wishes regarding the treatment of our partners. If a hostile family wishes to exclude us from the hospital room, they may legally do so in most states. It is even not uncommon for hostile families to make decisions based on their hostility -- with results consciously intended to be as inimical to the interests of the patient as possible! Is this fair?
Upon death, in many cases, even very carefully drawn wills and durable powers of attorney have proven to not be enough if a family wishes to challenge a will, overturn a custody decision, or exclude us from a funeral or deny us the right to visit a partner's hospital bed or grave. As survivors, estranged families can, in nearly all states, even sieze a real estate property that a gay couple may have been buying together for many years, quickly sell it at the largest possible loss, and stick the surviving partner with all the remaining mortgage obligations on a property that partner no longer owns, leaving him out on the street, penniless. There are hundreds of examples of this, even in many cases where the gay couple had been extremely careful to do everything right under current law, in a determined effort to protect their rights. Is this fair?
If our partners are arrested, we can be compelled to testify against them or provide evidence against them, which legally married couples are not forced to do. In court cases, a partner's testimony can be simply ruled irrelevant as heresay by a hostile judge, having no more weight in law than the testimony of a complete stranger. If a partner is jailed or imprisoned, visitation rights by the partner can, in most cases, can be denied on the whim of a hostile family and the cooperation of a homophobic judge, unrestrained by any law or precedent. Conjugal visits, a well-established right of heterosexual married couples in some settings, are simply not available to gay couples. Is this fair?
These are far from being just theoretical issues; they happen with surprising frequency. Almost any older gay couple can tell you numerous horror stories of friends and acquaintences who have been victimized in such ways. One couple I know uses the following line in the "sig" lines on their email: "...partners and lovers for 40 years, yet still strangers before the law." Why, as a supposedly advanced society, should we continue to tolerate this kind of injustice?
These are all civil rights issues that have nothing whatsoever to do with the ecclesiastical origins of marriage; they are matters that have become enshrined in state laws by legislation or court precedent over the years in many ways that exclude us from the rights that legally married couples enjoy and even consider their constitutional right. This is why we say it is very much a serious civil rights issue; it has nothing to do with who performs the ceremony, whether it is performed in a church or courthouse or the local country club, or whether an announcement about it is accepted for publication in the local newspaper.
Conclusion
As we have seen, the arguments against gay marriage don't hold up to close scrutiny. Neither the arguments traditionally raised nor the real feelings of the opponents make much sense when held up to the cold, harsh light of reason and logic.
So let's get on with it. Let's get over our aversion to what we oppose for silly, irrational reasons, based on ignorance, prejudice and faulty assumptions, and make ours a more just and honorable society, finally honoring that last phrase from the Pledge of Allegance: "With liberty and justice for all."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About The Author:
Scott Bidstrup is a free-lance writer who has been active in political issues and in the gay rights movement, specializing in youth and marriage rights issues, since coming out as a gay man in 1994. He has a Bachelor of Arts in Communications from Brigham Young University (1971) and is a retired microwave communications and satellite earth station transmission engineer, born in the United States, but currently living (in exile) in Costa Rica.
His essays on this web site, including this essay, have been frequently reprinted in magazines and in book form in essay anthologies, and this particular essay, the most widely reprinted, is often used in formal logic and critical thinking classes, both at high-school and college level, as a study text. The web site which the author maintains (of which this essay is a part) is one of the oldest and most popular personal web sites on the Internet. It "went live" in early 1995, and over the years since it has become quite popular among gay youth and their parents, as well as intellectual and political readers of the web; the site currently gets about 150,000 page-reads per month in total.
-
Re: If you support rights for gay EXCEPT marriage Consider this article
Are there any arguments against gay marriage that werent covered.
If so please feel free to add :)
-
Re: If you support rights for gay EXCEPT marriage Consider this article
Here is an interesting article in opposition to same-sex marriage.
Homosexual "Marriage" and Civilization
-
Re: If you support rights for gay EXCEPT marriage Consider this article
This isn't a direct reply to original poster, just a general reply to the topic.
I look at it this way; whether or not gays marry doesn't effect me. I'm not gay. Therefore, if an issue doesn't effect me in the slightest bit, why would I let my views infringe on other people's lives regarding their consensual adult relationship?
I find it bizarre that the vast majority of issues that the right say will "destroy society" and "make us the laughing stock of the world" are already implemented and in place in Europe. Gay marriage, socialized medicine, separation of church from government, etc... You know what? They are doing fine. In fact, they are kicking our asses till next Tuesday economically. This issue will NOT destroy American morals or bankrupt us financially. It's a lie and a propaganda ploy set forth by those who are against it. There is not a shred of proof in any of their paranoia about the possible effects.
It doesn't effect me, it doesn't effect you (unless you are gay, or love someone who is). If you oppose it, shut up and mind your own business... it doesn't concern you. If you're so desperately worried about the "sanctity of marriage" maybe you should; ban divorce, stop going to strip clubs, stop using sexual feelings as the basis of marriage, and start respecting your spouse unconditionally. Until then, hypocrisy is the rule rather than the exception.
-
Re: If you support rights for gay EXCEPT marriage Consider this article
I don't think any of those are the REAL reason that the US is "banning" gay marriage. I think (and Melonie, correct me if I am wrong) the REAL reason is the Gov doesn't want to loose that much money.
If the US let gay legally marry tommorrow, it would almost bankrupt the country (even more so). Just the loss of additional taxes alone would be staggering. Not to mention how much extra the Gov would have to pay out for additional stuff such as extra dependants, and the marriage break.
I think it basically boils down to money, plain and simple. It just sound better to cover it up with pro-creation, and religion.
Kitana
-
Re: If you support rights for gay EXCEPT marriage Consider this article
Quote:
Originally Posted by kitana
I don't think any of those are the REAL reason that the US is "banning" gay marriage. I think (and Melonie, correct me if I am wrong) the REAL reason is the Gov doesn't want to loose that much money.
That much money???
Just how many gay people do you think are in the US that really want to get married???
The gay community could all move to canada or spain and the US wouldnt feel it it all.
yea we might miss some friends,but it wont change a thing.
-
Re: If you support rights for gay EXCEPT marriage Consider this article
Last I checked there were around 10% that openly admitted to being gay. Now take into consideration that a large group of them have good jobs with sizeable income. Now give them a lower tax rate, and a bigger return for their marriage. That ends up as a loss for the IRS, not a gain.
But like I said that's just my opinion.
Kitana
-
Re: If you support rights for gay EXCEPT marriage Consider this article
Quote:
I think it basically boils down to money, plain and simple. It just sound better to cover it up with pro-creation, and religion.
Yup you got it. The true problem is of course that our tax system and private benefit systems have unfortunately linked the fact that people are legally married to eligibility for tax breaks and family benefit coverage - with the intention of course of defraying the costs of raising children. 99% of the gay marriage controversy would not exist if people's marital state was not a criterion for tax breaks and benefit eligibility, and if child raising incentives were directly available to anybody who is raising children.
The gay benefit controversy stems from CDC data indicating that the overwhelming majority of existing US HIV/AIDS cases occurs in the gay population, hospital statistical data showing a huge cumulative expenditure to treat HIV/AIDS cases over the course of the disease, leading to a conclusion that providing new mandatory health insurance benefits to gay spouses, on a per beneficiary basis, will wind up costing the insurer a lot more money in payouts. This problem could have been avoided if the statistical risk were allowed to be factored in as it is with smokers, but politics has so far prevented any official acknowledgement that gays are any more likely to develop expensive health problems than the population in general where this issue is concerned. Of course private insurers who are not bound by equal and mandatory coverage laws do charge premiums to gays which are commeasurate with the actual risk factors, which is a huge reason that the gay lobby wants to see mandatory gay spouse benefits enacted.
-
Re: If you support rights for gay EXCEPT marriage Consider this article
lemme get this right ur saying no gay marriage b/c of hiv ?
question : what % of the gay population has hiv ? what % of straight people r postive ?
The reason I ask is b/c u seem 2B assuming the majority of gay people are positive and I just dont think thats true.
Unless over 50% of gay people are + then it's not a very good reason to ban gays from marriage...... imho
-
Re: If you support rights for gay EXCEPT marriage Consider this article
My thoughts on gay marriage...
I'm 100% for gay marriage and am quite ready to pay for it, being a complete heterosexual as well as single. It's the right thing to do as a measure against discrimination as well as create equality for all US citizens.
That being said- anyone that feels legalizing gay marriage will not have costs is delusional. The filing status of MANY tax payers will change, additional benefits will be awarded, higher insurance costs will begin. All of this is a reality even if you completely discount/ignore statistics concerning HIV or statistical lifestyle variances for expenses.
My biggest complaint about this topic is the absurd number of those championing this change without any (or sub-par) risk or costs associated. As far as I'm concerned- anyone that isn't seeing 30% or more of their GROSS/REAL income going to Uncle Sam as well as paying hundreds a month in insurance premiums has absolutely no voice in the matter whatsoever. They are as involved in the matter with as much at stake as if they were voting for ant's rights in molehiles in Zimbabwe. Anyone claiming 1/10th to 1/4th of their gross income on taxes... or are employed by establishments that do not provide healthcare benefits are truly deluded if they think their applause for such benefit has any degree of credibility.
I make correct/fair sacrifices in order to sustain rights, benefits and priveleges to others in my community and society. Anyone that isn't currently doing so at THIS level already has no voice in instigating additional burden/sacrifice. I just find it rather unusual that the loudest champions for additional benefits/rights for discriminated groups/organizations are almost always from those that have little to no ventured burden at current, yet advocating additional burden.
I'd simply advocate that we indeed inact gay marriage rights, but also implement this in the form of a mandatory yearly registration fee to all Americans based on age range instead of claimed gross salary. This kind of progressive taxation will assure all those championing change/additional tax burdens are on the level with their intended sacrifice to champion such change.
-
Re: If you support rights for gay EXCEPT marriage Consider this article
Ok i dont agree with the gay marriage part,but most kewl post pole.
-
Re: If you support rights for gay EXCEPT marriage Consider this article
If gay marriage is legal ,then "partner benefits" are a needed thing IMHO...whya re people who make a lief together, live togheter and have children denied the same right sunder the law as same sex married couples? if we are going to allow gays to marry, and extend benefits to them under the law, then other "informal/nontraditional" unions need to be recognized IMHO...I have no problem with same sex unions, if it creates more equality for others, and not just a well to do lobbyist group...
-
Re: If you support rights for gay EXCEPT marriage Consider this article
Quote:
lemme get this right ur saying no gay marriage b/c of hiv ?
No I'm saying that statistically speaking the actual costs of providing mandatory spousal benefits to gay spouses is an order of magnitude higher than providing the same benefits to an average American spouse. I'm saying that because federal and state laws link the existance of a marriage contract to automatic benefit eligibility that American business and gov't will be saddled with very large increases in benefit costs as a result of gay marriage - costs which will be passed on to every other American in the form of higher taxes or lower wages or reduced benefits. I'm not saying this is right or wrong, I am simply saying that there is a significant new cost involved to provide new benefits to gay spouses which all Americans will wind up paying for.
Quote:
question : what % of the gay population has hiv ? what % of straight people r postive ?
CDC statistics indicate that US gay males are 20 times more likely to develop HIV/AIDS than an average American.
Quote:
The reason I ask is b/c u seem 2B assuming the majority of gay people are positive and I just dont think thats true.
No it's not true. However if even one gay person in 10 develops HIV/AIDS, and thus requires an additional $20,000 in drugs for ten years plus $250,000+ in hospital bills once AIDS takes over, and then dies 30 years before an average American, these sort of costs added to an employer's health and life insurance pools are much higher statistically speaking than an average American employee or spouse.
I have tried to make the analogy before that it is legal for insurance companies and employers to charge their employees higher premiums because they smoke. Smoking does not specifically guarantee that one particular person is going to die 30 years before an average American of lung cancer and create astronomical insurance bills in the process, but as a group smokers are statistically more expensive in this regard. The CDC Data clearly shows that Gays are also statistically more expensive in this regard due to HIV/AIDS - even more so than smokers from a dollar cost standpoint because of the incredibly expensive AIDS drugs, yet there is no recognition of this fact in regard to mandatory insurance coverage for gay spouses. That is my ONLY objection.
Quote:
then other "informal/nontraditional" unions need to be recognized IMHO
Agreed - our tax code needs to be changed to remove the tax breaks for married people, and instead to provide those tax breaks intended to subsidize child rearing by some other method which directly connects the establishment of a 'home' and existance of the child to the tax break. As it is, married people without children are able to benefit from the tax subsidy (which is expensive for single people who must pay higher taxes to compensate) simply because they are legally married. Statistically speaking very few gay couples would actually raise children compared to average American couples yet would be eligible for the tax break, meaning that under existing law average Americans would wind up paying higher taxes to compensate. This is my ONLY objection as well.
-
Re: If you support rights for gay EXCEPT marriage Consider this article
A couple of weeks ago I was watching a gay preacher on tv. I don't usually watch religion on tv, but I happened to turn him on. He was "preaching" on gay marriage so I decided to watch for a few minutes. What was amazing to me was that every single reason he listed for gay marriage was an economic issue. After listing several of the tax breaks gay couples were not currently allowed he even said, "gay couples are being denied the hundreds of tax breaks that are availible to heterosexual couples, and as taxpayers, that is wrong". That really opened my eyes that despite all the rhetoric, it really is about the money. While getting my oil changed, I read in Newsweek that GWB has no plans to push for the gay marriage amendment in congress during his term. I predict that because they can use this issue to motivate their core groups, both parties are content to just let this issue boil for a long while.
-
Re: If you support rights for gay EXCEPT marriage Consider this article
well melonie ur objection sounds like bigotry 2 me, sorry.
I mean what about over weight people ? They r at risk for lots of high cost medical treatment... do u want to deny them marriage 2 ? And ur example of smokers, do u want to deny all smokers marriage as well ?
I guess what I'm saying is ur objections don't make sense and seem seriously bigoted, IMHO
-
Re: If you support rights for gay EXCEPT marriage Consider this article
Not just money. If my girlfreind were to be in the hospital, I would not be able to visit her. In fact, her family (who think she's going to hell for being gay and hate me) would be able to bar me from seeing her at all. If she were to die without a very specific will, I would have no right to attend her funeral or carry out her other wishes. Straight people can get married and automatically have those rights.
-
Re: If you support rights for gay EXCEPT marriage Consider this article
I heard Conn. is going to be the next state to have civil unions ! Good for Conn. !
I know there's people out there and here 2..... that don't want non heteros like ME 2 have equal rights but I dont think u all can stop it from happening.
1st Vermont, then Mass. now Conn is about to follow suit.... it's happening people... better get used to it.
U can't hold us down 4 ever !
hahahahaha!
-
Re: If you support rights for gay EXCEPT marriage Consider this article
Quote:
I mean what about over weight people ? They r at risk for lots of high cost medical treatment... do u want to deny them marriage 2 ? And ur example of smokers, do u want to deny all smokers marriage as well ?
There's no reason to link the marriage license and therefore mandatory spousal benefits issue to smokers, because smokers already must pay extra high insurance premiums to cover the added health risks and risks of dying sooner than average, whether they are unmarried smokers or married smokers ! I would have absolutely no problem with gay marriage if those same sort of extra high insurance premiums were able to be charged to gays to cover their additional health risks and ensuing insurance costs associated with their particular group - but under current labor law, union contracts, and 'equality' court rulings etc this isn't allowed. And technically, the extra health risk and risk of early death only applies to gay males, not gay females.
I also feel that the same sort of logic should apply to 'morbidly obese' people - let them pay for the extra health risks and risk of early death that they, like smokers, choose to bring on themselves ! However, at the moment, obesity is legally definined as a disease where tobacco addiction is not, so the law prevents overweight people from being charged extra as smokers are.
Quote:
What was amazing to me was that every single reason he listed for gay marriage was an economic issue. After listing several of the tax breaks gay couples were not currently allowed he even said, "gay couples are being denied the hundreds of tax breaks that are availible to heterosexual couples, and as taxpayers, that is wrong". That really opened my eyes that despite all the rhetoric, it really is about the money.
There you go! Again, for the umteenth time, it is the structure of the US tax system and benefit system which is at the root of the problem - because it uses the existance of a marriage contract to define eligibility for benefits. Were it not for the fallacies of existing tax and benefit law, and if spousal benefits and child rearing subsidies were actually allocated based on two people maintaining a home and raising children rather than being a mere 'presumption' following a marriage contract, I would have absolutely no issues whatsoever with gay marriage.
I also tend to agree with your assessment that both political parties will be content to let the gay marriage issue drift for the next 4 years. States are individually voting to protect themselves (and businesses based in those states) from out-of-state gay marriages having any effect in their particular states. The IRS has ruled that gay married couples are not eligible for the 'married' income tax childrearing subsidies. Massachusetts corporations are already headed for court over the mandatory spousal benefits issue, and are heavily researching reducing/dropping benefit coverage to All employees in Mass where possible to avoid being forced to absorb the huge cost of insuring gay spouses (i.e. grant all employees pay raises but drop all employer provided health and life insurance coverage and let employees buy their own health and life insurance if they want it).
Politically, gay support for Democrats is virtually unanimous, so neither party sees much reason to stir up the issue since virtually no votes would change sides. Politically, anti-gay support for Republicans is also virtually unanimous as well, so stirring up the issue wouldn't change any votes in that segment either.
-
Re: If you support rights for gay EXCEPT marriage Consider this article
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lena
If she were to die without a very specific will, I would have no right to attend her funeral or carry out her other wishes. Straight people can get married and automatically have those rights.
This is veering slightly off topic, but your comment reminded me of something I learned a long time ago when I worked in the Trusts and Estates department of a bank. You may have been just using conventional language for another type of document, but generally a will is not a very good place to lay out one's wishes for funeral arrangements. The funeral will have been long over by the time a will reaches probate. Anyone with issues of this type - and I assume this could apply to straight domestic partners, not just gays - should probably consult their attorney about drawing up a separate document regarding these issues and making sure it's legally binding. There may even be a way to incorporate hospital visitations and other such things at the same time.
I won't mind at all if Stant or GrnBeret care to correct me on any of the above - like I said, that job was a long time ago.