Posted by
Playful Walrus on Tuesday, October 07, 2008 11:04:16 AM
Fannie commented on my response to her response to something I wrote. Got that? Well, my response to her comment was too long to post a comment, so I’m making it another entry.
“I notice you stand by your statement in which you say that same-sex couples contribute nothing to society except for the spread of disease. Are you at least able to recognize how such a statement could cause people to hate gay men and lesbians?”
I cannot be held responsible for the misuse of my statements. Nowhere do I advocate the hatred of homosexual people. Frankly, I don’t understand such hatred. I can understand finding public displays of affection and some of the more extreme things one may find at a pride parade to be disgusting, though I tend not to be riled up by such things either - AND, we’ve all seen heterosexuals behave inappropriately in public, too, quite often on television. I stand by my statement because it is true. If you’ll excuse me getting graphic – none of us would be here if it weren’t for coitus. Even IVF babies come from an ancestry of coitus – the physical joining together of both sexes. The same can’t be said of the physical interaction of two men or two women, nor can two women provide a father to a child nor two men a mother to a child. Society is comprised of both sexes. Marriage is forming an inclusive microcosm of that society, often for the perpetuation of it.
“Can you recognize that such a statement is offensive?”
I can understand why someone would take offense to it. People are often offended by the truth. There are people who think my religious convictions and practice are worthless and contribute nothing good to society, and they say so. They even make movies saying so and those films get widespread publicity. I think they are wrong, but I also don’t (without tongue firmly planted in cheek, anyway) accuse them of causing hatred towards me.
"In light of such a statement how can you in good faith claim to care more about the dignity of gay men and lesbians than I do?"
Because while it may be fun for some, I think the kind of physical interaction and social choices involved in homosexual behavior is harmful to the individuals participating, and harming yourself and committing (what I understand to be sin) is not dignified. I think the same way about heterosexual fornication. I argue that I care more about the dignity of men when I say men should not fornicate, as fornication hurts the soul as well as increases the risks of disease, making stupid decisions, and conceiving a child out of wedlock, among other reasons. By the way, I’m not saying all of this as someone who is a prude who has always lived by these ideals. I’ve sinned big time in my life. But I will not excuse it by saying it really isn’t sin, nor will I try to get the news media, academia, etc. to give me a stamp of approval for such behavior.
I think that it is sad that there is high incidence (compared to the general population) in homosexual circles of certain diseases, substance abuse, mental illness, and domestic violence. I wouldn’t wish that on anyone. I don’t think those things are dignified. I do not think that more affirmation or encouragement in homosexual expression is going to make those things go away. I think they are correlated more to homosexual behavior than to any societal disapproval (notice that these things are still prevalent in the subculture in areas where homosexuality is celebrated and certainly not repressed). I don’t expect that homosexual people in general are going to throw up their hands and become celibate or enter into heterosexual relationships (though some have done just that). But that’s my reasoning as to the matter of dignity.
“I urge anyone to peruse my blog archives if they are interested.”
Thank you very much for your comments and feedback and invitations. I did scroll down a little when I checked out your response to my earlier posting, but I did not click through because I ended up reading it offline. I always appreciate knowing where some people on the other side of an issue are coming from. In fact, I just took the time to click through to see your objection to the phrase “neutered marriage” and I stick by the phrase. It is the best way to describe what is happening when you take something that is inherently about uniting the sexes – the masculine and the feminine – and remove that essence. That’s what removing “Bride” and “Groom” from a marriage license does, and that’s what removing “man” and “woman” from the law regarding the state recognition of marriage does. The whole reason anyone uses the term "gay marriage" is that they recognize that it is different from marriage. (It was just announced late yesterday that "Bride" and "Groom" will be returning as options on California marriage licenses. While I welcome that, I question the timing of this announcement, as well as the fact that this will supposedly be implemented after the election. I regard "Bride" and "Groom" being only optional to be like applying for veterans' benefits and having the option of checking a box that says you were never in any of the armed forces.)
Correct me if I don’t have this right, but I gather your position on this is that since the state issues marriage licenses to both-sex couples, it should treat same-sex couples the same and issue marriage licenses to them, too. However, while I believe individuals should be treated equally under the law, I do not believe that voluntarily associations should be treated the same unless they are identical in composition. For example, there are certain requirements to be a licensed business or a recognized nonprofit, and a “small business” is often treated differently than larger ones. There is a real difference between men and women (if they were interchangeable than there wouldn’t be “gay” and “straight to begin with), and so when you have one of each it is a different association than when you have two men or two women. Since it takes both a man and a woman to make a child (and the child does not choose this relationship), the state has an interest in licensing the marriage of a bride and a groom that is not there with two men or two women.
Nonetheless, the state of California has, through the legislative process, opted to treat same-sex domestic as spouses. Since that is the case, I’m led to conclude that the opposition or Prop 8 is based on 1) a desire to use the legal term “marriage” for implication of societal acceptance; 2) a desire to use California’s judicial imposition of sexless (neutered) marriage licensing to force other states to recognize same-sex domestic partnerships as marriage. However, in the first case, if the people of California, who issue those licenses in the first place, agree that marriage can mean two men or two women, why not achieve that through popular vote instead of judicial imposition? In the second case, why shouldn’t the people of other states be allowed to decide how their marriage licensing will be handled – through direct democracy if they have it, or through the legislative process if they don’t? It wasn't like there was ever a situation where same-sex couples were getting marriage licenses and the Religious Right came along and manipulated the state into ceasing such licensing, adding "Bride" and "Groom" to the mix. The state did not create marriage through licensing - it recognized what already existed. We do not have that same history with same-sex couples, where "marriages" were a recent phenomenon, modeled after (bride-groom) marriage, which has existed for all of human history.
Individuals will have the same access under the law whether or not Proposition 8 passes. If Proposition 8 passes, same-sex couples will still have domestic partnerships (same rights as married spouses) and other ways of formalizing their relationships. However, if Proposition 8 doesn’t pass, then it will become illegal to give preference in adoptions to homes with both a mother and a father, and, I suspect, children will lose their rights to their mother or father in other ways as well. Socially, as I’ve pointed out before, I expect an even higher percentage of children to be born out of wedlock, raised out of wedlock, or to have divorced parents, as we will have it in our laws and as official public policy that marriage can’t be about children. Maybe that doesn't bother you, but most studies show such outcomes will be problematic to children and so society by extension.