…exceptionally grumpy right now, for a number of reasons. Mostly I blame “widespread stupidity.”
On a related note, via the magic of the Web, I tripped across this mere moments ago:
It’s on a humor site (funnyordie.com) but it’s still, basically, a good point. I’ve ranted about this before, but the scare tactics surrounding the anti-gay-marriage “movement” irk the hell out of me.
Warning: I feel a rant coming on. Flee while you can.
You know what? I don’t think I’ve ever been made aware of a situation where a gay couple walking by or holding hands or filling out paperwork suddenly caused a hetero couple to look at each other and think “You know what I need? A divorce.” If you have a cookie, and then I have a cookie, does your cookie suddenly taste bad because I have one? If so…that means you have issues. That’s a principle we teach children.
Oh, and speaking of children – why is “What about the children? Won’t somebody think of the children?” such a common concern? Unless the plan is to eventually stamp out all gay and alternative sexual/romantic lifestyles (how? genocide???)…eventually the kids will become aware of homosexuals and their relationships. Noticing that Steve and Chad both wear wedding rings isn’t going to make a lot of difference to kids…but their parents divorcing could ruin their lives. By that standard, divorce is more damaging than gay marriage to the lives of children. Maybe we should take the children away in the event of a divorce, and put them in foster homes with a loving, happily married couple? Oh, wait…that’s a horrible idea, too. Oh, darn.
If a heterosexual marriage is so critical to the well-being of children…what about single parents? Do we make it illegal to keep your kids if you are unmarried? Riiiiight.
As long as we’re prohibiting some people from getting married, why don’t we take the next logical step: evaluate every couple’s chance of a successful marriage using statistical data, and then refuse to grant them a marriage license if they are more than, say, 40% likely to divorce eventually. That’d save a lot of grief in the long run…but who decides? Yeah, good luck with that part.
Maybe the answer is to rescind the legal status of marriage? We could divide it into Marriage and Domestic Parterships. Imagine “Marriage” as a social ceremony performed by a religious authority over the couple, with NO legal standing – if you get “Married” you don’t become a single legal entity, which would dramatically streamline divorce proceedings. Filing for a “Domestic Partnership” would grant your relationship legal entity status (as marriage is now) in the same way that a “Business Partnership” grants a business the status of a legal entity. “Married” couples without a “Domestic Partnership” license wouldn’t combine tax paperwork, or be legally insurable as a single unit, or pay a different rate on income taxes. Couples who wanted to could still get both, of course, provided they could find somebody to perform the “marriage” ceremony.
This has the additional benefits of A) granting religious and social institutions absolute control over who they will allow to marry, with no annoying protests or legal intervention by activists, and B) guarantees the separation of church (religious bodies) and state (US legal and tax system) per the US Constitution. It also limits legal discrimination to that normally found amongst religious organizations, which they are apparently free to engage in.
Unfortunately, that will never happen…’cause it makes sense, and the human zeitgeist just don’t work that way, sonny.
In the end, there are exactly zero logical, rational reasons to ban gay marriage:
- Protecting the “Traditional Meaning” of Marriage: Protect it from…what? And what is “it,” anyway? This usually shows that the person arguing doesn’t know their history. There is no one “traditional meaning” of marriage…except possibly as an excuse to tell some ball-and-chain jokes, which are apparently an ancient concept.
- Traditional marriage is between one man and one woman: Um…whose traditions, and from when in history? What’s the criteria to validate this, other than you shouting “MY traditions!!!”? It’s not an absolute argument at that point, it’s a moral one (see below). Try again. Historically, polygamy is more widespread and common – the introduction of monogamous marriage is a recent idea in most cultures and religions, and still only has traction in developed countries. You can read up on it here. Polygamy was widely accepted among the ancient Jews, and the Christian ideal of monogamous marriage is likely descended from Roman ideas on marriage – ideas from what would be a pagan religion, by Christian standards. So “God only wants me to be with one spouse” either begs the question “which god?” and implies a Roman deity in response, or speaks against divorce and remarriage if marriage is a divine and holy accord. Reminder: for many years, divorce was cause for excommunication! You want us to go back to that?
- Gay marriage is immoral and a sin: Okay. Sure, if you think so. But so are a lot of other things that are perfectly legal. Moral value is not the only determining factor when deciding whether or not something should be legal, mostly because there are so wide a range of moral viewpoints and many of them conflict. We don’t stone women to death here in the US for being raped or having sex while unmarried, do we? Remember…separation of church and state is a good thing.
- Gay marriage will hurt children: …HOW? Let’s see: the gay couple next door are suddenly wearing rings…nope, no harm there. The gay couple next door have joint health coverage…ditto. They file their taxes together…still good. One of the two wore a dress instead of a suit/a suit instead of a dress…have you seen “Mrs. Doubtfire” or any woman in a business suit? Read on:
- Specifically, gay marriage will force religious organizations to comply with anti-discrimination laws and place foster children with gay families:…why is that bad, except that it makes you feel “icky” and you don’t like people infringing on your church’s right to discriminate? The former mostly shows that you don’t believe that two men or two women can take care of a child or that they’ll somehow make the child become gay – neither of which is true, by the way. Gay couples have found, more often than not, that their kids grow up and decide their sexuality on their own – I’m sure that gay couples have been disappointed by their straight kids, too, but I suspect they love the kids all the same anyway. The latter…that’s a separate question, and more complex. See the end of the post for more.
- Gay marriage means that teachers will be able to teach our kids about gay relationships: Again…why is that bad? You want to “protect” your kids so they don’t know about gays until they’re adults? How is that a good idea? Every reason you have is easily countered, I’m afraid. I can understand parents wanting to keep teachers from teaching sexual topics to kids under a certain age – but specifically excluding gay marriage from that is pretty much discriminatory, unless you also keep teachers from talking about every other kind of marriage or relationship at the same time. And by the way…trust me when I say that one lesson at school is never going to have the same impact as consistent and conscientious parenting. If you want to teach your kids that homosexuality is a sin (Do you hate ethnic minorities too? If you do, I’m sure you’ll pass that intolerance along as well.) that’s your prerogative, and you’ll probably be successful…at least, until they’re old enough to think for themselves, and then they’ll either become bigoted adults, or they’ll turn on you and refuse to respect your beliefs. It happens all the time, for almost any belief…sad fact of life.
- You can “respect” a gay lifestyle choice without “affirming and embracing” it: In the south, while slavery was still rampant here in the US, the same kind of double-think allowed slave owners to view their slaves as both animals (and thus property) and humans at the same time. This use of the word “respect” is really slimy – it’s a way for the speaker to feel good about him- or herself while still maintaining a bigoted outlook. It has no other practical effect. It is, however, possible to “affirm” another’s decisions – usually by validating them as morally and legally acceptable – without “embracing” them in the way most people would use the word (in the sense of adopting).
Going back to the question of religious organizations complying with anti-discrimination laws…. Well, it’s either a good thing (discrimination is bad, m’kay? Our culture tends toward liberty…as well as life and the pursuit of happiness, yes?) or it’s a cause for some laws to be reworked in addition to gay marriage laws. If we’re going to legally enshrine the right of religious organizations to discriminate and still get government funding, we should just go ahead and do it! If we’re not, we’re not, and you’ll just have to live with that.
Now, I understand that a major faith-based fostering agency closed its doors in Massachusetts because the gay marriage laws there, coupled with anti-discrimination laws, meant it was legally obligated to place a certain number of kids in gay homes…or at least, to not intentionally discriminate between gay and hetero households. And the church officials involved chose to leave rather than comply. First…nobody forced them to close up shop. They were confronted with a law, and chose to leave in a huff rather than try to get their own legal protections passed. Perhaps that was the right decision – I’m not really in a position to judge.
Second…we come back to the question “Is it wrong to place foster kids with a gay couple?” Well…why would it be?
“It’s against my religious beliefs.” Well, I’m all for respecting religious beliefs, but some of them cross a line into the human rights area (“You can murder your wife if she commits adultery” for example) which is more a legal thing than a theological one. You just have to accept that religious freedom and freedom from discrimination or persecution will conflict occasionally, and that our nation and culture normally tends to side with the discriminated-against and the persecuted when it comes down to brass tacks. Doing it the other way results in systems like the one in Kuwait, where a rape victim gets whipped for…being a rape victim. Can you really get behind that approach?
“Gays are unsuitable parents.” Why? If you’re willing to be sexist for a minute, so am I, and we can agree that two dudes are maybe not the ideal candidates for the sole parents in a child’s life. It’s hard for me to argue against two moms collaborating, though. But the argument that a child requires both a male and female parent is only fine if you’re willing to concede that it should then, by extension, be illegal to be a single parent. And if one man, OR one woman, is a potentially successful parent, why would two men or two women suddenly become less competent? And how is it that two stable adult presences in a child’s life are a worse choice than one parent and an endless string of blips – the series of boyfriends or girlfriends who cycle in and out of the life of a normal single parent?
“Gays are all perverts and/or potential child molesters!” Well…so are straight folks, last time I checked. In fact, there is a line of reasoning that most pedophiles are straight – which would, um, make gays the better choice? Ouch. The truth is that neither heterosexual nor homosexual adults are inherently better or worse parents – I’ve met many straight couples who should never have had kids. Does that mean we shouldn’t permit straight couples to parent??? It’s just not relevant.
Let’s take a moment to look at an actual excerpt from the website referenced in the video: www.protectmarriage.com.
“The narrow decision of the California Supreme Court isn’t just about “live and let live.” State law may require teachers to instruct children as young as kindergarteners about marriage. (Education Code § 51890.) If the gay marriage ruling is not overturned, TEACHERS COULD BE REQUIRED to teach young children there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage.
We should not accept a court decision that may result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay. That is an issue for parents to discuss with their children according to their own values and beliefs. It shouldn’t be forced on us against our will.
Some will try to tell you that Proposition 8 takes away legal rights of gay domestic partnerships. That is false. Proposition 8 DOES NOT take away any of those rights and does not interfere with gays living the lifestyle they choose.
However, while gays have the right to their private lives, they do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else.”
Take a minute to digest that, then look at the assumptions behind the bold parts of the quote (emphases mine). Is there a difference between gay marriage and heterosexual marriage? What is it? Is one inherently better? Why? And is heterosexual marriage the only “traditional” form of marriage children should be educated about? Do we want teachers to just pretend that sub-Saharan tribesmen in Africa aren’t still polygamists to this day? Is gay marriage not okay? Would we prefer that teachers teach our kids that gays are unnatural abominations? Nobody’s suggesting any alternative approaches, it’s either “talk about it like it’s okay” or “we just don’t talk about those things.” Avoiding the subject amounts to being too embarrassed to admit you don’t approve of gay relationships. If you really approved, where’s the problem? What’s really going on here? What are the underlying ideas?
Then there’s the last two… “forced on us against our will” and “they do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else.” Who do they mean by “us” and “our” and “everyone else” anyway? In the first case the phrasing is pretty clear: “us” is parents who don’t approve of gays or gay marriage and don’t want their children to think it’s okay. In effect, these people are asking for legislation to force teachers into being complicit with these parents…which is a form of discrimination. If my daughter goes to school and learns about gay marriage it probably means I was putting off explaining to her about those crazy gays. If I don’t want her to approve of gay marriage, then I have to…gasp…parent her by explaining what I think and why I’m right and her teacher is just teaching what the government says he/she has to by law…and that those laws are stupid and wrong. Of course, then I’d have to worry about her regurgitating my attitudes at school…and then it’s a struggle between me and the school faculty over my child’s moral values. For some, that must be a pretty scary idea. Is it worth messing with the lives of others to avoid this problem? Well, discriminatory legislation is probably cheaper than private school.
Then there’s the question…why would a parent want to teach their child that homosexuality is wrong, or that gay marriage is wrong? I can only think of two major kinds of reason, either that the parent wants to pass along a “moral value” against homosexuality, or that they are afraid that if their child knows gay marriage is possible, he or she is more likely to be a gay adult. The former is bigotry, pure and simple, from a legal standpoint, and it doesn’t merit legal protection. If you want to enforce that kind of moral on your child, it’s your problem to figure out how. Kids in various subcultures still grow up racist somehow, so it’s obviously possible. The latter option, fear of a gay child…well:
- Straight child -> learns about gay marriage -> suddenly magically gay! (also unicorns are real)
- Straight child -> learns about gay marriage -> doesn’t really care. Has a normal life. (typical)
- Gay child -> learns gay marriage is wrong and impossible -> grows up, out of the closet, angry and feeling oppressed. Congratulations, you’ve screwed up your child’s life.
- Gay child -> learns gay marriage is wrong and impossible -> grows up in the closet, never really happy in life. Congratulations, you too have screwed up your child’s life, and possibly their eventual spouse’s and childrens’ lives by extension. Marriages built around a closeted partner tend to have…well, issues.
- Gay child -> learns gay marriage is normal and possible -> grows up with one less piece of baggage, may be happy if you don’t screw something else up instead. (Parenting is hard work!)
Which progressions do you think make the most sense? (Yes…I know it’s more complex than this. I only have so many hours in a day, people!)
For the rest of us…I resent this. It pisses me off. I will have an active hand in my child’s development, but I teach her to think for herself, to evaluate, to make good decisions…not just do what I say ’cause I said it and there’s no other reason. I explain things and trust she’s got a functioning mind, and that it will only become stronger with use. I shelter her from dangers, not ideas. The only dangerous idea is one you don’t question.
And then there’s the “everyone else” bit at the end. “They” don’t have a “right” to redefine marriage for “everyone else.” That sets up a little conflict, with “they” (gays, if you look at the phrasing) on one side and “everyone else” (literally everybody who is not gay) on the other, and then implies that “they” will force their views on “everyone else” as if “everyone else” was against the gays in the equation. But what about all the heterosexuals (not to mention other genders and orientations) who side with the pro-gay-marriage movement? Um…LGBT folks are still a minority and they won’t be forcing their ideas on anybody through a vote…at least, not unilaterally. But if the majority side with gay marriage rather than against it, the equation changes, dunnit? Things did’t quite play out that way this time…but the vote only went against gay marriage by LESS THAN A FIVE PERCENT margin. Not exactly an overwhelming majority.
Remember, by the time that quote was written, the issue was already on the ballot. During the period after a split California Supreme Court decision overturned a voter-approved law as unconstitutionally discriminatory (by the way, that’s one thing their job is for!) but before Prop 8 was on the ballot, it really was a case of gay activists forcing the issue – whether that was right or wrong is arguable, and I don’t have the energy to go through the whole case history right now. However, once the issue went on the ballot for a popular vote, it became impossible for the LGBT community or activists to really force anything…things just came down to the (very close) vote.
I should probably mention that if you’re the kind of person who simply wants to see all homosexuality disappear overnight…I probably won’t be able to persuade you of anything, and neither will anyone else, because you’re not willing to think past the decision you’ve made and a boundary you’ve set in your own head. Fine. I can’t respect that degree of mental inflexibility – but I won’t try to get you banned or legally oppressed either. I just want to know…how do you propose we do away with gayness? Homosexuals have been a persistent minority for virtually all of human history. They’re not a result of modern “moral collapse” or something in the fast food. They’re not contagious. It’s probably not wholly genetic, it may not be genetic at all, and if homosexuality is a sin then surely tinkering with God’s DNA specifications is no better, so gene therapy is out. Brainwashing? Maybe in North Korea. Capital punishment? I think that’s what they do in Iran. Genocide? They’ll all just hide in the closet anyway – if you even have the guts to try it. Gradually marginalizing them? History says that’s not a sustainable or successful approach. So…what’s the plan?
I think, before you go calling a whole social group perverts, you should ask yourself: “Do I enjoy sex?” If the answer, like most of us, is “yes” then somebody, somewhere, thinks you’re a pervert.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Note the lack of relative terms – it doesn’t say “mostly without sin” or “with slightly less sin” or “with no sins today.” Just. Without. Sin. Pure. True. Honorable. Holy. Without sin. Any takers?