10/21/2005

Aren't There More Pressing Matters?

While the White House is falling apart due to scandal and indictments and Bush turns his usual deaf ear to trouble, members of Congress are sure to bring up the urgent national matter of queers trying to marry.

Yep, this is what the Senate Committee on the Judiciary concerned themselves with discussing yesterday. Will it or will it not destroy the very fabric of our highly moral and Christian society to allow two committed individuals to marry?

GOOD GRIEF!!!!

Here's a link to some of the text from the hearing:

http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=1641

I particularly love Senator Leahy's comments (basically, "um, why are we wasting our time with this when we could be worrying about other things?"):

As a nation, we are facing many pressing and problematic issues at this very moment -- the war in Iraq, devastation from flooding and hurricanes, record-high fuel prices, the threat of a flu pandemic, and a burgeoning national debt, to name just a few. This Committee is seeking to conduct expedited proceedings on President Bush’s nominee to succeed Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on the United States Supreme Court. Perhaps as a distraction from these important matters, we now are asked to again turn to a divisive measure that will contribute nothing to rebuilding the homes that have been destroyed or saving the lives that are threatened or jumpstarting the economy.

*Bold-my emphasis

24 Comments:

At 00:47, Blogger Tonito Bandito said...

Callie, again you come through with the most appropriate entries. I had to link this one to my blog. Come back soon!

 
At 18:18, Blogger Lizzy said...

Callie,

I know a really pressing matter...Fred at Making Conservatives Cringe has a good piece on the silencing of the soldiers who speak out against Iraq.

 
At 22:35, Blogger FUNKYBROWNCHICK said...

Individual and collective levels of ignorance never cease to amaze me. I feel like I've been living in Crazyworld for the past few years!

 
At 09:29, Blogger lovin' it said...

If the good senators decided to take up a measure granting marraige rights to gays, would you view this as wasting valuable time too? Or is it only a waste of time because you disagree with the likely result of the debate?

It's hardly honest for you to say it's not an important enough of an issue for us to spend our time on. Half your posts on this blog are arguments demanding gay marraige. If your side hadn't brought this up, we wouldn't be spending time on it.

Again, you have every right to advocate for your beliefs. But it is silly for you to spend so much time fighting for an issue, and then tell the people who disagree with you that they are wasting their time on an issue that has no importance. Is it important or not?

 
At 11:26, Blogger RedStateExile said...

Lizzy-

Thanks for the tip on that blog. I'll check it out. Somehow I don't find it surprising. It's fitting with this administration.

 
At 11:49, Blogger RedStateExile said...

lovin' it-

I must ask now since I've been provoked...lovin' what? Yourself? Come on, use a little common sense with this issue. Actually, with the current state of politics and the current hostility towards gays, I would be just as concerned about an amendment coming before the Senate or the House to grant marriage rights for gays. Don't get me wrong, I would LOVE for someone to have the balls to do it, but I know EXACTLY how disgusting and hateful it will get. You know what I'd really like to start seeing? A lack of cowardice. I would like to see more senators and representatives stand up and say that discrimination doesn't belong in the U.S. I would like to see more straight and gay Americans stop dividing us between "our side" and "your side."

You want to blame anti-gay amendments on gay people. That's like blaming a lynching on a black person or a rape on a woman. We asked for equality. Where in the word equality do you see the words discrimination, hate, anger, fear? EXACTLY!!!

The reason these amendments keep coming up have nothing to do with us, but EVERYTHING to do with hate, anger, fear, and discrimination. They have EVERYTHING to do with the "your side" mentality.

I do want to get married officially one day. Right now, I'm just happy because I don't have to be one of those people trying to find a way to make everyone else miserable by trying to pass amendments and laws to limit their freedoms. I've got my love. All they've got is their hate. If you look at it that way, I've already won this war.

Anyone that doesn't appreciate that I've got joy and love can kiss my queer ass! :)

 
At 12:25, Blogger lovin' it said...

Callie - First of all, that "anonymous" post was just spam. Their computer picked up on key words in your blog that made it think it might have been purient, hence the ad spam you got. I get ads for wine and books at my blog all the time. I just delete them.

More importantly, by "your side," I meant the side that wants legal gay marraige, as opposed to the side that wants to restrict marraige to straight couples. Every political issue has two sides, that doesn't mean that we hate you just because we disagree with you. It just means we disagree.

But this whole battle did start because a gay couple sued and won in MA for the right to marry. No one was pushing for marraige amendments before that happened. So apparently it was important enough to someone on your side of the argument to make an issue of it.

My point is telling people that they have more important things to worry about then gay marraige while people are actively fighting to legalize it just sounds like a dodge to people like me. Argue the case on the merits all you want and persuade whomever you can. But no one on my side is going to buy you saying we should be more worried about the economy or the war as long as other people keep pushing to change current law. You (not you personally) prove it is important by your own actions.

Regards.

p.s. "Lovin' it" is my blog name celebrating freedom of speech in particular and america in general. Check out my blog http://iseveryonedreaming.blogspot.com/ to get a feel for what I mean.

 
At 15:34, Blogger dorsano said...

No one was pushing for marriage amendments

The sacrament of marriage is protected by the first amendment. The courts have always granted churches wide latitude in matters of doctrine.

Neither congress nor the executive can force the Pope to marry gays - they can only grant gay couples equal rights under law.

The GOP has been playing politics with gay peoples lives for almost three decades now - they have pushed for devisive legislation at both the state and national level long before actions in MA.

Gays and Lesbians will eventually be treated like full American citizens - we are nothing if not a fair people.

The divisive, sectarian and misleading policies of this administration and the current GOP in general are becomming more and more plain to people every day.

 
At 06:36, Blogger RedStateExile said...

lovin' it-

First, I'm going to be a stand-up kind of person and say thanks for letting me know about the spam thing. I only started getting those a few days ago and I thought someone was being a smartass. This morning I heard about it as well on Air America. It's annoying as hell because it keeps clogging up my email. Oh well, what can you do?

Now, my inclination was to expend a lot of time and energy on he said/she said, dates/times, etc. just to prove you wrong but I really don't feel like bothering. The more I read your comments, the more I realized it really didn't matter.

You still insist on dividing us into sides, and that tells me all I need to know about your views. You act like "hey, good for you, do what you have to do" but then in the next breath I feel like you are saying "BUT you have your category of relationships and we'll have ours."

If that's what you REALLY think, just say so. I know my relationship is equal to yours and any other heterosexual couples I know. That's one reason the word "marriage" is so important to me and also because of what the word connotates in its meaning of commitment and fidelity to others.

If you think this way, fine but be straightforward about it. I'm sure there are others who think of themselves as liberals, progressives, or Democrats that hold these bigoted views. I'd rather cull it out and call it what it is than ignore it within our ranks or attribute hateful rhetoric to "the other guys."

I thought of an analogy last night fitting of this situation. These amendments are much like crowds that get whipped up into a frenzy by the street corner preacher (we all know the type), some people in the crowd can't believe the venom they are hearing while others are getting more feverishly into it, the quiet ones kind of stand there in shock and dismay as they watch the frenzied crowd begin to pick out innocent passerbys as "sinners" worthy of retribution, instead of ignoring the rantings and wailings of hateful rhetoric, the quiet crowd stood there giving credence to the message and making the masses seem greater than they really were.

If you are silent, you are still a witness to the crime. If you give in to the rhetoric, you become a part of the belief system. If you are already talking "your side" and the opposition, then you've probably already made your choice.

I don't mind talking to you about these issues, but let's call it what it is.

 
At 06:48, Blogger RedStateExile said...

dorsano-

You made excellent points! Thank you!

It is easily forgotten that churches have the power of determining who they will and will not marry. The Baptist church where I grew up back in Alabama just a few years ago refused to marry an interracial couple. The groom was from my mother's generational line and one of the original founders of the church. He was basically ostracized in the community and he never set foot in the church after that. The divisions the church creates does them more harm than good, but they don't see that.

I also think it's easy for people to forget how gay people kept to themselves in places like Greenwich Village and San Francisco only to have their private clubs and bars raided. If they had been left alone, Stonewall may not have happened and we may not be at this point today.

The hunt to root out gay people though went well back into the McCarthy era, and many left the country to seek refuge in France and other European countries.

I saw a headline yesterday in our local paper that said the number #1 reason teachers were fired were over sex allegations (not proof, just allegations). As a society, we are bound and determined to control the human animal's desires, even when it has absolutely no barring on our own personal and moral lives, such as marriage rights for gays.

I have yet to find or be told a good reason why we can't have the title of married. There isn't one because it's all based on their own personal fears and loss of control/loss of privilege.

 
At 08:07, Blogger lovin' it said...

Just so their's no misunderstanding, I'm not a progressive. I'm about as right wing as they come. What your side labels with the compassionate, understanding term "wingnut." ;-)

I do think you are attributing meaning that I didn't intend from my "your side" comment. I merely meant your side of the political debate. Please don't try to make it sound like I'm dehumanizing you because you want gay marraige. I just think you're wrong. That's the way politics works in a democracy.

 
At 09:15, Blogger RedStateExile said...

I'm not a progressive. I'm about as right wing as they come.

Yep, that explains EVERYTHING!!! Hey, I don't know where you got "dehumanizing" from. I didn't use that word. I wonder how that got in there. Wanting to be married actually should humanize me, right?

Oh well, I say you're wrong!

Did not!

Did to!

Did not!

Did to!

That ends up being a real mature political discussion, huh? Let me know when you want to have a discussion.

 
At 14:03, Blogger lovin' it said...

Okay, let's discuss it then.

For starters, marriage has been defined as between a man and a woman for the entire history of the institution. Marriage has existed in this form, and this form only, for longer then there has been governments of any kind on the earth. My understanding of your position is that you want to open the institution up to any two adults who love each other, regardless of their sex or sexual orientation. Is that a fair summation?

My question is, have you thought through the implications of your position? Should I, as a heterosexual male, have the freedom to marry two or more women, so long as they both consent? What if I love them both, and they both love me? What would be wrong with that? You may think it's a stupid question, but actually that exact thing happened in the Netherlands, which as you know, has had gay civil unions for years now. A straight, but non-monogamous man successfully petitioned to marry two bisexual women. Is there anything wrong with that? If you eliminate the male/female pairing as the basis for marriage, why restrict it to two people? Let's bring back the Mormons and polygamy. Why not?

Or to take a more extreme case, what about the small but discriminated against minority who prefers sex with livestock? If someone like that settles on one or two horses that he loves over all the rest, should he be allowed to solemnize his relationship with the bonds of matrimony? I'm not trying to morally equate homosexuality with bestiality. But on what grounds would you deny that relationship the dignity of marriage? Just the fact that you dislike his sexual preference? Or maybe because you don't believe you can truly be married to an animal, no matter how much you love it? If that's the case, you are now making the same arguments that the defenders of heterosexual marriage only are making.

What it comes down to is that not every form of pairing or sexual expression equals a marriage. In order to be legally married, I had to choose to restrict my sexual drive to only one person. It is perfectly legal for me to have whatever kind of sexual or emotional relationship I like with whomever I choose, but that does not make them marriage. Marriage means something. Take away the meaning, and it becomes just another empty word.

I do NOT mean this to say that your love is any less valid. I have many people I love just as deeply as I love my wife. My parents, siblings, and children are all loved equally. I also still hold feelings of love and affection for a few of my past serious girlfriends, although my marriage vows keep me from expressing those feelings in any sexual way. The fact that our love is not marriage does nothing to invalidate them. But it is something different.

 
At 15:42, Blogger dorsano said...

Most people in this country, even in the "red" states, and even those who tend to vote Republican,

believe that if you stay on the right side of the law, take care of your property, pay your taxes and are an American citizen, you deserve to be treated like an American.

Last week was "Coming Out Week" and students in Pikesville, Md., like students all across the country, organized events to encourage gay students to come out and straight students to support them.

A handful of people from a nearby church rallied and used a bullhorn to make plain their belief that homosexuality is sin. The students responded with a rally of their own.

Many of the people who attended the rally commented at how many students openly support gay rights.

"My gaydar is pretty good," said Anne Bugnaski, a senior at Carver high school. "Most of these students are not gay. It’s amazing."


We are a tolerant people by and large. We share a great country in a wonderful world and if we can manage it we'd like to see that every American gets a decent shot at a decent life and would not deny him or her a chance to share it with someone they love.

That is the America the students in Pikesville and across the nation love.

It's the America that brings tens of thousands of people here a year to live and work despite the sorriest excuse for a President of the United States that we've ever produce.

It's the America the world looks up to and admires.

And the young people we've produced show that God still blesses our country.

 
At 16:48, Blogger dorsano said...

Only in the minds of a few people is bestiality, bigamy and polygamy alive and prospering in the Netherlands

Why those sorts of people tend to vote Republican is beyond me.

 
At 14:14, Blogger RedStateExile said...

Dorsano-

AGAIN, you make very good points. The younger generations coming up are far more open-minded than their parents, and this has SO much to do with the fear that fundamental evangelicals (I can't give them the courtesy of calling them Christians) have. They know the control they have had is slipping and they are feverishly working to limit civil rights from numerous groups. Why else have a SC of right-wingers who want a Constitution that is reflective of 18th Century ideals?

If they make it difficult, if not impossible, for individuals they don't agree with to live decent lives, then they feel they've done their duty to God.

It's quite sad and pathetic, but also scary.

 
At 14:47, Blogger RedStateExile said...

This is perhaps the most, if not, the only accurate line you've spoken so far:

In order to be legally married, I had to choose to restrict my sexual drive to only one person.

Ummm, dude, you and I then aren't so different. What gives you the gumption to assume privileges that others can't enjoy then? History? Come on! Your comment is as dated as saying "In order to be legally married, I had to restrict my sexual drive to a woman of my own race."

You're using the same fear tactics today that were used then.

Let's see:

Do you fear that straight people will be gay just because they can get married to a gay person?

Do you fear that a person who NEVER had an inclination to screw their dog will suddenly have an urge just because gays can marry?

Do you fear that all hell will break lose if gays can get married and everyone will be marrying everyone else (hmmm, somehow I thought marriage was good and adultery/fornication was bad, but oh well) at the same time?

Yeah, I can see this one working. Jealous women and men just LOVE to share their spouses, so they'll just get married to other men and women too and call it even. SUUURRREEE!!!

OR

Do you REALLY fear that your precious, privileged status as better than others will be violated because you have to share a title with a queer?

In all seriousness though, I see a major flaw in your bestiality fears (and I can't even believe I'm bothering to address this). In marriage vows both parties give consent, right? Both have to verbally say "I do," right?

HOW THE HELL IS A HORSE GOING TO SAY 'I DO'!!!??? Where's the consent? How will the horse be given away? How will the parent's of the horse say "We do" to the minister?

How will a horse manage powers of attorney or estate issues, burial arrangements, paying or covering for tax-related issues after death of the non-animal spouse?

I think you have a few little problems with your gays-marrying-will-lead-to-bestiality fearmongering argument.

Many of the same problems hold true for having multiple marriage partners, but at least someone can FREAKING SPEAK and GIVE CONSENT!!!

What I approve or disapprove of doesn't matter. I don't find it necessary to judge other people and hang out in their bedrooms to make sure what they do doesn't offend me. I'm CERTAINLY not concerned with whether who (yes, WHO, not what) they love is going to belittle my own marriage. No one has the power to do that, but me.

Bottom line:

Get a life! Get over your phobias!

 
At 21:40, Blogger dorsano said...

14:47

That would make a great country western song Callie

 
At 05:25, Blogger RedStateExile said...

I can hear the tune in my head now!!! I'm a bit disappointed, but not surprised. I thought I had a pet neocon that I could hug and pet and call "George." As so typical though, they rant and rave then take off. They don't actually want to hear anyone else's views. Oh well, there are always more rocks for others to crawl out from under!

 
At 05:31, Blogger lovin' it said...

First of all, I didn't run off. Work has just been too hectic to post for a few days.

As to the Supreme Court: If you want gay marraige and can win it at the ballot box, more power to you. But don't try to force it on us in the majority through arbitrary court power. This country is still a democratic republic. The will of the people is still supposed to mean something.

And no, I don't think there's anything you or anyone else could do to lessen my relationship with my wife. That's not the point. What's at issue is the future of the institution, not my personal well-being.

The purpose of marraige is two-fold. First of all, to provide a stable family to create and raise children. The second is to provide motivation for men to put aside their selfishness and become productive members of society. Neither of those goals may be politically correct, but both are essential for the long term survival of our civilization, which the state has an interest in promoting.

The state does not criminalize any form of partnering or pairing up you could care to engage in. You are perfectly free to do whatever you like without anyone telling you no. That is your freedom.

But the state does have an interest in furthering the survival of our civilization. Which is precisely why heterosexual monogamous marraige receives favored status from the government. It does what no other institution can do, and deserves and demands protection from anything that would weaken or dilute it.

And yes, that includes no fault divorce. That was one of the worst mistakes regarding marraige ever made by our states. But that doesn't mean I want to compound error with error. Marraige needs saved, not destroyed.

 
At 09:24, Blogger RedStateExile said...

As to the Supreme Court: If you want gay marraige and can win it at the ballot box, more power to you. But don't try to force it on us in the majority through arbitrary court power. This country is still a democratic republic. The will of the people is still supposed to mean something.

SC/ballot box-check out the new posts. It's all about power. The younger generations know you guys are full of crap and you're trying to enforce your will before it's too late. Basic democratic principle: there are three branches of government; one that is a tie-breaker to keep a balance of power called the judiciary because the other two are self-servicing pigs; while Americans can appeal to their elected officials for new laws to be passed through them, being the self-serving pigs they are, they'll do what they have to do to get elected; enter the lobbyists who work to sway said self-serving pigs; thus, the judiciary is necessary to curb the self-serving and unforeseen troubling circumstances of stupid legislators and the people who elect them.

This, evidently, is waisted on fundamentalists and dominionists who want complete control over the lives and bodies of the masses or else there wouldn't be attempts to take over the judiciary with fundamental dominionists who view the world through 17th Century eyes.

The will of the people does mean something and it means that hate and discrimination WILL fail.

You've walked yourself into a circle with your two-fold purpose for marriage (hint: if you care so much about it, start by spelling it right).

Anyone can create and raise a child. It doesn't take marriage for that. That piece of paper doesn't open a special gate of allowance for being able to create and raise a child, nor does it make one relationship better than another to do so. I have a Jewish friend who adopted a girl, but her husband hasn't adopted the little girl yet. Since she didn't "create" the baby, does that not make her a true mother? Since the husband hasn't adopted, does that make the marriage less legitimate? Of course not, and who are we to say that only in marriage, can a child be created and raised. That's BS!

Now, putting aside selfishness and becoming productive members of society. Well, for crying out loud, wouldn't this be something we would want from all members of society or just the straight ones? For all the bitching and complaining of the right-wingers about gays being promiscuous and our supposed inability to commit, the moment we want to commit, you shot it down and say we can't commit because that's only for straight people to do! Huh?? WTF?!

You should be glad that gay couples want to settle down to monogamy and family life, but I guess that rocks the belief that you were raised with.

You want to make it impossible for us to achieve it so you can say we weren't capable of it anyway.

That's some f***ed up logic, man! Then again, that all goes back to power, doesn't it?

 
At 12:37, Blogger lovin' it said...

Callie -

1. When someone starts criticizing minor spelling errors on a blog, it usually means they are running out of arguments.

2. Thank you for being so honest about the fact that leftists don't trust democracy. I knew it was true, but I'm glad to hear you confirm it.

3. We won the election, we have every right to put our kind of judges on the bench. Besides, I'm under 30. Doesn't that make me part of the younger generation you're talking about?

4. Anyone can create a child, but a mother and a father married to each other have been proven to do a better job then any other option available. Adoption has nothing to do with it. If a husband and wife adopt a baby, that baby has a better chance of turning out right. It's not about whether or not they are his biological parents. And this is definitely in the interest of the state.

5. Two lesbians are contributing nothing to the civilization of men. And another man cannot do what a woman does by being in a committed marriage relationship with a man. I'm not saying that a man can't be a productive member of society without a wife, but having one certainly increases the odds. And that is a good the state has a solid reason to support.

Bottom line, the state's recognition of marriage is not primarily about rights. We already have the right to engage in whatever kind of relationships we want without anyone telling us no. Marriage is about the state encouraging the specific type of relationship that provides the most good to society as a whole, as opposed to just bringing satisfaction to the people involved.

Actually, I wish more heterosexuals recognized that too. No-fault divorce has done more harm to marriage then gay marriage ever would. But when an institution is on life support, you don't give it another shot to the head. Marriage needs healing, not further damage.

 
At 13:45, Blogger RedStateExile said...

When someone starts criticizing minor spelling errors on a blog, it usually means they are running out of arguments.

Nah, it was getting on my nerves. Besides I used to teach English and I was thinking that I could do my little part in this world to save someone from their own bad habits. I mean if you're arguing for something, you should at least be able to spell it correctly. BTW, you're welcome!

Thank you for being so honest about the fact that leftists don't trust democracy. I knew it was true, but I'm glad to hear you confirm it.

What you call democracy is really fascism and theocracy and no, I don't trust it. I've never been given a reason why I should. When people are given the power to decide who has rights and who doesn't, who is equal and who isn't, who is good enough and who isn't, that's too much power for the common person to handle. Most people can't even deal with things in their small world much less comprehend the effects of their decisions on the larger world and lives of people they've never met. Do you have any comprehension of the impact your discrimination makes on my life? You have yet to bother to ask. I can only presume it either a) boggles your mind or b) you don't care.

We won the election, we have every right to put our kind of judges on the bench. Besides, I'm under 30. Doesn't that make me part of the younger generation you're talking about?

Actually, I meant the not-yet able to vote generation, that younger generation. No, I've seen some nuts around my age, that selfish GenXer group, that votes with their pocketbook and says they care about society. They care about their society, their niche group.

Anyone can create a child, but a mother and a father married to each other have been proven to do a better job then any other option available. Adoption has nothing to do with it. If a husband and wife adopt a baby, that baby has a better chance of turning out right. It's not about whether or not they are his biological parents. And this is definitely in the interest of the state.

proven to do a better job then any other option available

Really? I'd like to see a non-religious, non-biased link proving this. And what's your definition of "turning out right"? Do you mean "straight"? If that's the case, what happened to me? I was adopted, as a baby too, so you can't blame it on missing my daddy or something and not having a good bond with males. I had the picture perfect family with the stay at home mom, older brother, and hard-working dad. We went to church every Sunday. My mom played piano and my dad was a deacon. In fact, our whole family is filled with missionaries. So, what gives?

That kind of blows your theory that a good Christian home with a man and woman can turn out "good" kids out of the water. I won't bother getting into all of the sordid stories of good Christian families, with their mommy and daddy facades, that are crumbling from drugs, teen pregnancy, adultery, etc. Your theory is just that...a theory. No proof!

Two lesbians are contributing nothing to the civilization of men. And another man cannot do what a woman does by being in a committed marriage relationship with a man. I'm not saying that a man can't be a productive member of society without a wife, but having one certainly increases the odds. And that is a good the state has a solid reason to support.

"Two lesbians are contributing nothing to the civilization of men."

Thanks for the genuine bitch slap. I wasn't going to go there until you did, but hey. And of course, you had to do the vice versa thing too. Men have to have women to be productive. What you mean to say is men have to have women to pop out their children?

It sounds like you have a big hang up on procreation. Do you really think men will stop getting it on with women if men could marry each other? That doesn't make sense!

Even gay people continue to procreate. We may not marry members of the opposite sex, but it doesn't mean we can't and don't procreate. Life won't end because gay people can marry EACH OTHER! We're not trying to marry you or some other straight person.

Common sense leads one to the conclusion this would help straight marriages since people won't feel the need to lead double lives. There should be fewer people hiding and lying out of fear.

But, honestly, if this nation continues to demonize the gay person, you will see more and more people trying to hide behind a facade of heterosexuality, only to ruin more lives. Why? Why would we want to do this to people? It would make more sense to create a society where it is okay for people who are gay to commit to each other and be rewarded for that commitment not penalized.

You make a statement about marriage being for the good of "society as a whole" and not about rights. When people get married, I doubt they are thinking "I'm doing this for the good of society." You can bet that they are thinking like my mother was "He has potential and I can LEARN to love him." My mother wasn't thinking about society. She was thinking she wouldn't have to work.

Yeah, I may have the "right" to sleep with anyone I want to and go home at night to anyone I want to (as do you), but I don't have the economic, social, legal, and constitutional RIGHTS that a straight person does. You know there is only one word that gives those RIGHTS and you are more than happy to keep those for yourself.

 
At 07:57, Blogger lovin' it said...

Here's one link on parenting and children: http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2005/09/26/news/13206.shtml

and another:

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/life/20050913/d_healthymarriage13.art.htm

By turning out right, I meant staying out of trouble, staying in school, and getting honest work after graduation.



You are right that people don't get married for the good of society. They get married for their own reasons. I was referring to the state's interest in privileging monogamous heterosexual relationships over all other types. But if what you are interested in is the legal rights, a lawyer is lots cheaper then a wedding. A few signatures on a document will get you visitation, rights of survivorship, even the care and keeping of minor children in case of death. No one is keeping you from any rights. They are already available under the law.

As to the larger question of choosing sexuality, I have no doubt that biology plays a role. But sociatal approval and environment undeniably do as well. Here's why I say that:

Estimates on the percentage of americans who engage in homosexuality range from 3 to 10%. However, among men in prison for long periods of time, the number who engage in homosexual behavior ranges upwards of 40%. Think about that! In extreme circumsances almost half of all men will take up homosexual behavior, at least temporarily.

Interestingly though, the percentage among ex-cons matches society as a whole. So what happened? The most obvious answer is that a very large minority of men chose to temporarily engage in homosexuality rather then abstain entirely from sex during their incarceration. To a lesser degree, you see the same phenomenon in all boy's schools and monastaries as well.

Based on the evidence, it seems clear that a larger percentage of people will engage in homosexuality in environments conducive to and supportive of it then otherwise. If that is true, then does it not stand to reason that the numbers of people engaging in homosexuality would increase if gay relationships were granted exact moral equivalence with traditional marriage? The number of people "shacking up" certainly has increased as society has grown more accepting of it.

It all comes back to my contention that the state has an interest in promoting stable heterosexual monogamy for the good of society. That does NOT mean that those who choose not to enter into these relationships for whatever reason should lose any legal rights. But neither should these relationships be granted equivalent status. Love can be very much real and still be personal. Marriage is personal, but it matters to society as a whole. That is what makes it unique.

Regards

p.s. How did I bitch-slap you? I was merely stating a fact. As a lesbian, you are not contributing to the civilization of men through your relationship. I'm not saying you are morally obligated to do so or that you are deficient if you don't.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home