Thursday, June 28, 2007

The Controversy Train Keeps On Comin' ...

Update: Girl suggested that I repost this so it appears at the top of my blog today. Good idea, Girl.

Hey, kids!

We've talked about healthcare, we've talked about the Black Spinster (we can't call her a Black Widow because she'd have to get married first), so tonight, let's tackle ... gay marriage!

My cyberpal Steff wrote a bang-up post about gay acceptance this evening, and as I was posting a comment, I realized that I was well on my way to writing a post of my own. And here we are.

My mother's pastor once tried to convince me that gays were probably the victims of abuse in their youths and could be "cured" with counseling. Oh, how he tried. I finally just said, "Look, you're not going to win this one. I will never believe that all of my gay friends are 'choosing evil.' " Jesus. So to speak.

To believe that gays should have the right to marry, you have to believe that they're born, not made. They don't choose to be gay. They're just gay. Just like I was born female and white. I could have been born gay. I wasn't. Though I often think it might be time to play for that team, cuz this heterosexual lifestyle ain't gettin' me anywhere. I know lots of fabulous women. If we were all gay, oh the partners we'd have to choose from!

But seriously, the argument against gay marriage seems to be that allowing gays to marry will erode the sanctity of marriage.

The sanctity of marriage? Puh-leeze. My friends John and Dick, who have been together for, what?, 20 years, aren't allowed to get married because it might ruin the "sanctity of marriage" but Britney Spears can get married for 55 hours and say, "It was just a joke, y'all!" and that doesn't ruin the sanctity of marriage?

No one has been able to tell me how my gay friends having the right to get married in any way lessens the significance of marriage if I someday get married.

I wrote a post on this topic nearly two years ago, and for as long as I've been asking this question, of gays and straights alike, no one has been able to give me an answer.

You can't use procreation as the justification of marriage. What about couples who are infertile or those who simply choose not to have children? Should we revoke their marriage licenses?

A couple weeks ago in Chicago, a baby was discovered in a garbage bag in a closet. Despite being allowed to drop off babies at fire stations or emergency rooms, some still discard infants like so much garbage.

Around the world and close to home, there are millions of children who need to be adopted. But don't let gay couples adopt! Oh no! Gay people can't provide loving, stable homes, right?

Maybe you think, "Gay people just make me uneasy and if they're allowed to marry each other, maybe one of them will hit on me!" Is that why gays shouldn't be allowed to get married? What if your child was gay? Would you want them to experience a lifetime of being denied the same rights you enjoy?

Honestly, what's everyone so afraid of?

Addendum: My friend Henry just posted a comment that reminded me of a key point I meant to make: I'm not talking about marriage in the religious sense. If churches want to ban gay marriages on religious grounds, that's another disucssion altogether. I'm talking about marriage as the execution of a legal contract. Not that there's not love involved, but I fervently disagree with employees at City Hall refusing anyone a marriage license based on sexual orientation. Thanks for jogging my memory, Henry!


Blogger OneMan said...

Because it doesn't match the traditional definition of marriage is, people are often afraid of changes in tradition.

In my opinion...
God has his definition of what marriage is (you were in my confirmation class so you know what I think God's definition is).

Humanity has their definition, in many ways they are not the same. In the US the definition is as much contract law in some ways than anything else.

When it comes time for God to judge, he will judge. I think he will also remind us that the ten commandments do not come with a scorecard, all of the sins have the same weight in his eyes.

So bottom line, I'd rather you call it civil unions and not force churches to perform them. Other than that.....

Heck even President Bush came out in favor of civil unions to some extent in 2004.

11:26 PM  
Anonymous girlanddog said...

I don't have much to comment on because I agree with you 100%. I think you should re-post this at the top of your blog so more people read it.

9:50 AM  
Blogger Mercurie said...

Well, whether one agrees or not, I am not sure that gay marriage will ever be considered "marriage" by much of the population, regardless of its legal status. The problem is that the very definition of the word "marriage" is a union between a man and a woman. It is defined as such in most dictionaries (I know--I've looked through them!). Even if unions between people of the same sex are then legalised, I suspect that much of the population will still view such union as not being proper marriages--not unless society's perceptions change dramatically. Sad, but unfortunately I fear it is true.

1:01 PM  
Blogger Beth said...

oneman - Thanks for jogging my memory. I amended my blog thanks to you.

girl - Thanks for the suggested. I reposted my blog thanks to you.

mercurie - Inspired by you, I just hauled out my dictionary. The word "marriage" was formed in the 13th Century, so somewhere in the 1200s, somebody came up with the word (which is also defined as "an intimate or close union"). I'm guessing the gay lifestyle wasn't as acknowledged back in the Dark Ages. Seems like these days, we should broaden the definition. But like you say, unless society's perceptions change, gay marriage will be seen as a civil union.

I know many gay folks have an all-or-nothing view and that they don't want civil unions as a compormise, they want marriage. And I agree with them that that's what they should have.

But civil unions are a step in the right direction. Here's hoping people get over themselves and just shrug and say, "Hey, if they want to get married, that's fine by me." It really has no bearing on anyone else's lives. I don't see why they're so adamantly opposed.

1:16 PM  
Blogger Napoleon Dynamite said...

I appreciate your understanding and support on this issue. :)

4:09 PM  
Blogger Beth said...

Hey, Napoleon! Is the liger your favorite animal? Welcome to my blog.

5:05 PM  
Blogger Jeff Hunter said...

I say let 'em suffer like the rest of us. ;)

9:24 AM  
Blogger J. Marquis said...

Good one, Jeff.

Gay marriage will eventually be a fact of life. Polls show the kids coming into adulthood have a very live and let live attitude when it comes to homosexuality.

10:44 AM  
Blogger Jeff Hunter said...

...and think of the extra tax revenue due to our good friend the marriage penalty. Two career dudes/ladies with no kids, the [insert favorite party to make fun of here] would have a field day with it.

1:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"To believe that gays should have the right to marry, you have to believe that they're born, not made."

Hmmm. Why is that, Beth? What if it turns out that it is choice, after all? How does that change the equation? (Makes me think about people who convert to another religion to marry. They're made, not born.)

Otherwise, I'm right with you.

12:10 PM  
Blogger Beth said...

Hmm, indeed, Anon. I never thought of it that way before.

Either way, born or made, people who want to deny gays their rights are operating from a place of homosexuality being wrong.

Huh. Thanks for opening my eyes on that one. No one ever put it to me like that before.

5:45 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home