Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe
Sign in to follow this  
Juan Cruz

A Conservative Surprise Re: Gay Marriage

Recommended Posts

I liked what this guy had to say. What do you think?

quote:
Op-Ed: The Power of Marriage

By David Brooks

Originally published in the New York Times

November 22, 2003

Anybody who has several sexual partners in a year is committing spiritual suicide. He or she is ripping the veil from all that is private and delicate in oneself, and pulverizing it in an assembly line of selfish sensations.

But marriage is the opposite. Marriage joins two people in a sacred bond. It demands that they make an exclusive commitment to each other and thereby takes two discrete individuals and turns them into kin.

Few of us work as hard at the vocation of marriage as we should. But marriage makes us better than we deserve to be. Even in the chores of daily life, married couples find themselves, over the years, coming closer together, fusing into one flesh. Married people who remain committed to each other find that they reorganize and deepen each other's lives. They may eventually come to the point when they can say to each other: "Love you? I am you."

Today marriage is in crisis. Nearly half of all marriages end in divorce. Worse, in some circles, marriage is not even expected. Men and women shack up for a while, produce children and then float off to shack up with someone else.

Marriage is in crisis because marriage, which relies on a culture of fidelity, is now asked to survive in a culture of contingency. Today, individual choice is held up as the highest value: choice of lifestyles, choice of identities, choice of cellphone rate plans. Freedom is a wonderful thing, but the culture of contingency means that the marriage bond, which is supposed to be a sacred vow till death do us part, is now more likely to be seen as an easily canceled contract.

Men are more likely to want to trade up, when a younger trophy wife comes along. Men and women are quicker to opt out of marriages, even marriages that are not fatally flawed, when their "needs" don't seem to be met at that moment.

Still, even in this time of crisis, every human being in the United States has the chance to move from the path of contingency to the path of marital fidelity — except homosexuals. Gays and lesbians are banned from marriage and forbidden to enter into this powerful and ennobling institution. A gay or lesbian couple may love each other as deeply as any two people, but when you meet a member of such a couple at a party, he or she then introduces you to a "partner," a word that reeks of contingency.

You would think that faced with this marriage crisis, we conservatives would do everything in our power to move as many people as possible from the path of contingency to the path of fidelity. But instead, many argue that gays must be banished from matrimony because gay marriage would weaken all marriage. A marriage is between a man and a woman, they say. It is women who domesticate men and make marriage work.

Well, if women really domesticated men, heterosexual marriage wouldn't be in crisis. In truth, it's moral commitment, renewed every day through faithfulness, that "domesticates" all people.

Some conservatives may have latched onto biological determinism (men are savages who need women to tame them) as a convenient way to oppose gay marriage. But in fact we are not animals whose lives are bounded by our flesh and by our gender. We're moral creatures with souls, endowed with the ability to make covenants, such as the one Ruth made with Naomi: "Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried."

The conservative course is not to banish gay people from making such commitments. It is to expect that they make such commitments. We shouldn't just allow gay marriage. We should insist on gay marriage. We should regard it as scandalous that two people could claim to love each other and not want to sanctify their love with marriage and fidelity.

When liberals argue for gay marriage, they make it sound like a really good employee benefits plan. Or they frame it as a civil rights issue, like extending the right to vote.

Marriage is not voting. It's going to be up to conservatives to make the important, moral case for marriage, including gay marriage. Not making it means drifting further into the culture of contingency, which, when it comes to intimate and sacred relations, is an abomination.


[This message was edited by Juan Cruz on March 07, 2004 at 14:03.]

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoy listening to this guy when he is on the PBS evening news.

There is another thread on GS, called "If I see another gay couple on TV" or somesuch.

When (not if) I see another gay couple on TV, I'm going to say to myself, "There's another couple who've paid too many dues, and spent too much suffering, to put up with it any longer."

You know, interracial marriage was only legalized in this country in the 1960's. Women only got the vote in the 1920's. "Separate but Equal" was so recent that many of us can remember "colored" water fountains and segregated schools. Heck, schools in my town weren't desegregated until my eighth grade year.

We should not allow our culture to say "If you're not just like me, you can't have what I have." That's not what America is supposed to be about.

I agree with those who say that a constitutional ban against gay marriage would be wrong. Our constitution is for freeing people from prejudice and bondage, and not for the institutionalization of prejudice and bondage.

"Live just, and fear not."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well put niKa.

Whatever it takes to get people's attention. This conservative argument makes sense. Even takes pot shots at liberals, probably just to help the conservatives connect with the writer.

The whole thing is inevitable.

We are either, personally, going to cope with the societal change or we are going to continue to participate in the fear and loathing, which leads to propagating superstition and hate crimes.

icon_biggrin.gif:D--> You talkin to me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I think he has a very valid argument here, but I have a problem with the following:

“When liberals argue for gay marriage, they make it sound like a really good employee benefits plan. Or they frame it as a civil rights issue, like extending the right to vote.”

Marriage is a commitment of the heart. It has nothing to do with rights and privileges afforded by the gov’t.

However, the legal license that the government (of the people and for the people – even gay people) gives to married couples has everything to do with rights, and so – yes! It is a civil rights issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The conservative course is not to banish gay people from making such commitments. It is to expect that they make such commitments. We shouldn't just allow gay marriage. We should insist on gay marriage. We should regard it as scandalous that two people could claim to love each other and not want to sanctify their love with marriage and fidelity."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Juan -- this article is total Bu**$hit. Rocky is right, it is most likely inevitable (given the DOWNWARD slant of morality today), but that does not mean that I as a conservative have to endorse, or "insist" that it happen, as suggested by the author.

Now -- here is a question. Gay marriage passes, everyone is cozy and happy, equality for all with no prejudice --- What is the next bandwagon you are going to get on? When this here is all "blown over" and "acceptable", what position will you all take when a pedophile demands acceptance to engage in THEIR "rights"??

I am not being facetious here. When one "cause" is over, another one starts. And I do not see this as an "end-of-the-world" scenario. The posibility of this happening is very real. I am NOT homophobic, but I think the line has to be drawn somewhere, and I don't care how many "dues" have been paid, as NiKa says -- I think the author of this article needs to re-think what conserative means, and get honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We heard Luke 5 & 6 preached in church this morning: Jesus at Levi's banquet (they all wore jeans) and then the healing of the man with the withered hand. The preacher talked about the "Pharisee's Rules" for:

PEOPLE: if different or sinful don't touch them

PIETY: what's good for me is good for you too

PRECEPT: blind obedience without consideration of the original intention.

Applies to both gay marriage issues and TWI issues (IMHO)!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dmiller, perhaps the reason you don't care how many dues have been paid is that you haven't had to pay them; aren't currently having to pay them. I know wonderful people, professionals, brilliant folks really, who have to sneak around in the middle of the night because they are homosexual, and will never be able to walk down the street in Norman, Oklahoma, in the light of day with the people whom they have faithfully loved for decades.

It's not "California" where I live. There are rednecks here, weird people, who would just as soon drag somebody behind a truck for being different. Is that really the kind of America you want to live in?

You strike me as a white heterosexual. That's cool. I'm one, too. But perhaps one difference between us is that I don't see a potential pedophile in every homosexual. I see a potential pedophile in every Boy Scout leader. We have different fears, you and I. I have known several people who have been abused or approached by their Scout leaders; my children won't be Scouts.

If you don't believe in homosexual marriage, aren't you very fortunate not to be homosexual?

The deal is that I can CHOOSE whether or not to be involved with Scouting. Homosexuals cannot CHOOSE whether or not to be homosexual. I'm not talking about people who play with being one or the other because they just have to break the rules. I'm talking about genetic homosexuals. They didn't choose to be that way, any more than I chose to be blue-eyed.

What if it was illegal for blue-eyed people to marry?

"Live just, and fear not."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NiKa -- you say (and maybe rightly so) "Dmiller, perhaps the reason you don't care how many dues have been paid is that you haven't had to pay them; aren't currently having to pay them. I know wonderful people, professionals, brilliant folks really, who have to sneak around in the middle of the night because they are homosexual, and will never be able to walk down the street in Norman, Oklahoma, in the light of day with the people whom they have faithfully loved for decades."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I know many brilliant folk, professionals, etc. who are homosexual, and yes I work with them too, so I HAVE to interact with them. I would rather see them straight, but it is their choice to do what they choose to do. I live in Duluth Minnesota, where there is a real "hot-bed" of homosexual activity, but I am not in California either, and "gay-bashing" does occur here as well.

I am NOT a "basher", I"m just looking (realistically) at what is the next logical step in all this clamour for "MY RIGHTS". And I have to disagree with you on one point -- perhaps some have it thru hereditary inclination, but I am of the opinion that most of the homosexuals out there, CHOOSE to be so, and use the "born with it" excuse just as that -- an excuse.

And I did not say that there was a potential pedophile in every homosexual person. What I DID SAY, was that perhaps they (pedophiles) will be next to claim their rights are being trampled on.

I am not in favour of gay marriage for those reasons. If this is allowed, who is the next group to step up to the plate, and say "we are being discriminated against"? My Humble Opinion? --- the mind is being SEARED with a hot iron, and pretty soon, you won't be able to tell good from bad.

I really don't care how "loving" a relationship two men, or two women have had. Do you salute and idolize the relationship a town drunk has had with the bottle?? Of course not. You see it as it is -- a problem. I see this as a problem, and as I said the "line has to be drawn somewhere".

This is where I draw the line. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hypothetically...if Gay marriages are made legal, does that mean the government will force churches to recognize them?

I believe that the seperation of church and state concept comes into play here. The government can provide for a legal civil union but they cannot force a church to perform or recognize such a union. There used to be folks who were legally married but unmarried in the eyes of the catholic church.

The sentiment against homosexuality is religious in nature. There is no overt crime being committed other than the act itself...kinda like pot smokers. It's a moral judgement and perhaps the government should approach this issue with a more pluralistic attitude. If the government is a true democracy, representing the will of the people...gay marriages should be allowed by law.

"I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...and let me add that if the government legalizes gay marriages, then it would be consistant and logical for churches NOT to recognize them unless they so choose...and forget that crap about so-called "hate crimes"...The church or any other individual should have the right to express their moral opinion about homosexuality...this is America dammitt! You can scream all day long that they were born that way...BUT, we are still talking about a behavior...not a color, not a race, not a gender....we are talking about behavior!

"I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy"

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dmiller, this is addressed to any number of folks in this forum and in society. Please do not take this as a personal attack, it's not. The views you stated are held by many, it's just that your post is here and the quotes are handy. I'm not trying to convert your way of thinking. Your beliefs are yours... but I do want to point out a couple of things.

homophobic: adjective

having irrational hatred of homosexuality: showing an irrational hatred, disapproval, or fear of homosexuality, homosexual men and lesbians, and their culture

quote:
I am NOT homophobic

I would think by that definition you are (as are many in these forums). I know it says "irrational fear" and you may well say (I'm not putting words in your mouth, just trying to follow a line of thinking) "I do not like homosexuals because I am a Christian and I believe that the Bible says it is wrong". If that's how you feel, OK. The subject of the debate isn't that you, or anyone else, has to "like" homosexuals.

What is it you fear? Homosexuals are out there right now. Whether they gain the ability to have a marriage sanctioned by the state will not increase nor decrease their numbers.

I am of the opinion that your fears are irrational. Sure, there are some homosexuals out there 'on the prowl'... homosexuals are a part of the human race and as such there will probably be a percentage of them that will commit sex crimes... but no more of a percentage than heterosexuals.

What I'm trying to say is: IT'S PEOPLE THAT ARE DOING THESE BAD THINGS. HETEROSEXUALS AND HOMOSEXUALS. (caps for emphasis, not shouting)

quote:
And I did not say that there was a potential pedophile in every homosexual person. What I DID SAY, was that perhaps they (pedophiles) will be next to claim their rights are being trampled on.

By inference, you DID make a comparison of homosexuality to pedophilia. You are not the first to do this. And I think it's a pretty weak and tired argument. Pretty much any time this issue comes up, someone is quick to compare THROUGH INFERENCE homosexuals to pedophilia or some other sex crime.

It's a dodge. It's trying to inflame the issue and take it to a different level. By all means, be angry at the pedophile, be angry at the rapist, be angry at the child molester...

And if you want to be angry at the homosexual, then be angry at the homosexual. Period. Be honest about it. You're angry at them or don't like them because they're homosexuals.

quote:
I really don't care how "loving" a relationship two men, or two women have had. Do you salute and idolize the relationship a town drunk has had with the bottle?? Of course not. You see it as it is -- a problem. I see this as a problem, and as I said the "line has to be drawn somewhere".
Again, this is a dodge. What in the heck has one to do with another? On the one hand you're talking about a "loving relationship" and on the other about alcoholism that is destroying a person and/or a family. One is a positive influence, one a negative detrimental influence to the individual and to society.
quote:
I am of the opinion that most of the homosexuals out there, CHOOSE to be so, and use the "born with it" excuse just as that -- an excuse.
Again, you're not alone on that line of thinking. That is what you CHOOSE to believe. I fought with that one for many years (well, I didn't really fight it, I believed as you do). I think it had to do with what I was taught. What I was taught by straight people.

But then, every homosexual person I ran into told me different. And you know what? I DON'T KNOW. I'm not gay, who am I to argue with them? How would any straight person know? Don't you kind of have to be there (so to speak)?

I know there are folks here who have said they disliked homosexuals because they were attacked or come onto by one. I would submit we could find a lot more folks who have been attacked or come onto by a heterosexual.

PEOPLE ARE PEOPLE. THERE ARE GOOD AND BAD. I FOR ONE DO NOT THINK PEOPLE ARE GOOD OR BAD BASED UPON WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE HETEROSEXUAL OR HOMOSEXUAL.

They are good or bad because they're people. We've got both types of people on this planet. Fortunately, I believe, there are far far more good than bad....

And I'd hate to miss out knowing some of the good just because they weren't "like me".

(I apologize for the spelling errors, I'm not as good a speller as I think I am)

She's the kind of a girl that makes the "News of the World" Yes you could say she was attractively built.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom Strange:

First -- NO need to apologize for spelling. Spelling doesn't count against anyone here at GS.

Second -- you make excellent points.

The one that resonates with me, as father to a teenage daughter, is "I would submit we could find a lot more folks who have been attacked or come onto by a heterosexual.

Lately, female teachers preying on both boys and girls in school have been making news. It's wrong, and it's pedophilia.

Further, I've read plenty of news accounts citing statistics showing the prevalance of female rape victims. Who are the attackers? Almost exclusively -- heterosexual males.

These points can help to put the fears in perspective and hopeful allow us to open our minds to consider whether our fears and concerns are reasonable or not.

And whether we can reframe our personal view of homosexual individuals more along the lines of incorporating the godly nature (somewhere in the epistles of Peter, I think) in our outlook.

Which takes us back to having to come to grips as individuals with our prejudices and hopefully choose to look at homosexuals as people who deserve respect as individuals, and if not, then for unacceptable conduct that hurts others, as opposed to hating them just because they are homosexually oriented.

icon_biggrin.gif:D--> You talkin to me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how many times one has to read the old chestnuts about paedophiles or animals.

Neither or them are adult consensual human situations.

According to Sir Robert Peel's Tamworth Manifesto, Conservative does not mean reactionary - ie that nothing should ever change. In fact the Conservative party over here has finally realised that point and has become friendly and proactive towards gays. Stability and commitment are in fact basic Conservative values.

No country that has enacted gay marriage laws has forced religions to accept or perform marriages.

Homosexual scoutmasters over here are accepted, there is no presumption that they will abuse their position. Paedophilia flourishes most in conditions of secrecy, not of openness. I wonder how many gay scouts have been affected by the US attitude.

Trefor Heywood

"Cymru Am Byth!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice post, Trefor.

I liked the conservative article very much.

dmiller, you said, "The line has to be drawn somewhere." Why draw it here, then? Did you get bent out of shape about people who marry for money? Or people who marry and do not plan to have children? Or people who do not take their marriage vows seriously, and pop in and out of marriage like it was a revolving door? Do you want to enact laws to stop these kinds of behaviors?

Now we have some people who want the freedom to express their commitment legally. They want the ability to legally say, "This is my spouse." They want to be able to make decisions for their loved one, should that person become incapacitated before giving power of attorney. They want to be able to have access to the same legal right to inheritance as any other couple.

How is gay civil marriage going to degrade your right to think of marriage however you want, and how would it interfere with your right to express that definition in a religious ceremony of your choice?

Regards,

Shaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom -- Thank you for your MOST EXCELLENT REBUTTAL (caps for emphasis, not shouting) icon_wink.gif;)--> I was impressed, and no -- I do not see it as a personal attack. icon_cool.gif

I stand by what I wrote. The point I was trying to make (and perhaps I did a poor job of communicating what I was trying to say) is that I am NOT against the person who is gay, but I AM against the fact that more and more "rights" are being demanded.

The only reason I used the pedophile example, is because everyone agrees that is wrong, and I was merely using them to show how yet "another" group of individuals could start demanding "rights", even if the pedophile thing IS an "old chestnut" as Trefor says. And Tom -- yes many heterosexuals prey on people as well. Perhaps I should have used them as the example of THE NEXT GROUP to clamour for equal rights, instead of the ped folk.

I have come a loooooong way from my earlier years, as to the acceptance of gays. Growing up in the 50's and 60's imbedded a lot of wrong teaching in my brain about it, and then in the 70's I met twi and vpw who teach me that gays are pozzezed, which basically confirmed that it was wrong, but now it was put on a spiritual level.

I used to have a problem with being in the same room with gays, but now I accept them for who they are, AS WELL AS what they stand for with a LOT less judgement than I used to cast their way. Am still working on getting the judgement level down to zero, so be patient, it will get there some day.

And finally Shaz -- no, I am not getting bent out of shape because they want to do things "legally". What I am concerned about (call it "bent out of shape" if you want to) is the state sponsorship of it all. That was my main point in the earlier post, and I guess I stated it poorly, since no one addressed that aspect, but focused on the other things I said instead.

Thanks for the feed-back. It gives me more to think about, as I work on reducing the judgemental issues in my life, but I am still against state sponsorship of gay marriage, and I still don't like the article at the top of the page.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:
dmiller said: I have come a loooooong way from my earlier years, as to the acceptance of gays. Growing up in the 50's and 60's imbedded a lot of wrong teaching in my brain about it, and then in the 70's I met twi and vpw who teach me that gays are pozzezed, which basically confirmed that it was wrong, but now it was put on a spiritual level.
me too bro... me too...

She's the kind of a girl that makes the "News of the World" Yes you could say she was attractively built.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Well kids it's alot of things." Ops, I didn't mean to say that. WAYBRAIN snucked in.

Marrige is an institution that was made up by man. Do your research and you'll see. Sooo what's the Beeef? What I do believe is a spiritual heart felt commitment between two people is the issue. The majority of folks that do get hitched don't have a vital relationship with God and/or are amotional and mentally unhealthy. Lots of baggage goes into the union. Breakups are do to immaturity,ingonrance and a lack of skills during the hard moments. Yea I do beleive that commitment in this day and time has been deluted or minimized to mean "when I feel like it or when it is convient"

When two people join in the union of an integral relationship, gender is really insignifacant. So what speaks volumes to me is what is lived rather then what is legal. With the gay community I think for some, they just want legal recognition for what spiritual, amotionally and lovenly has been in place for years. Don't you beleive though that after the hoopla has settled the devorce rate among gays will be equal to hetro marriges.Marrige or the family unit is not the thing in crisis here. The state of our human experiance is. We are a world that is perdominatly "self" orintated and narrsistic. And because of that any relationship will struggle and suffer weither hetro,gay,black white,young or old. So my hat is off to any one that has that selfless spiritual union married or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why would you knowingly deny someone thier rights?

this country was founded for all people who wanted freedom. if you don't like it leave it. it's not freedom for a few but for all.

I'd rather have a married gay couple that respects people live next to me instead of some of these rednecks who preach hate and rights for the chosen few.

some of the posters here complained when loy wanted to do a little gay bashing, but it's different when it's their turn to deny the same people.

rights shouldn't be denied based on sexual oreintation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"...is that I am NOT against the person who is gay, but I AM against the fact that more and more "rights" are being demanded."

This just sounds very condescending and smug....perhaps you clarified it in your other post, but it sounds like, you believe it is okay to be homosexual, but hey don't ask for equal rights. That's just for us heterosexual white christian types.

Yes we will allow you to exist, but don't try to be equal to us.

hmmmmmmmm.....

icon_confused.gif:confused:-->

Thats my story and I am sticking to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:
posted March 07, 2004 23:10

Hypothetically...if Gay marriages are made legal, does that mean the government will force churches to recognize them?

I believe that the seperation of church and state concept comes into play here. The government can provide for a legal civil union but they cannot force a church to perform or recognize such a union"

The sentiment against homosexuality is religious in nature.


The sentiment isnt necessarily a religious one, there is a very vocal and active wing of the conservative fundamentalist church that is anti gay marriage,

but other than that ,at least here in Massachusetts,(which is sort of like ground zero in this debate) there is a large movement by the churches , synagogues and temples to perform and recognize gay marriages even if the state decides against it.

If the churches lead will the state follow?

The question could almost be posed opposite than Groucho did, If churches marry gay couples will the state eventually be forced to recognize them?

[This message was edited by mstar1 on March 09, 2004 at 8:51.]

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:
Originally posted by dmiller:

Now -- here is a question. Gay marriage passes, everyone is cozy and happy, equality for all with no prejudice --- What is the next bandwagon you are going to get on? ...

I am not being facetious here. When one "cause" is over, another one starts.


Exactly. It's called progress. We've come a long way from days when people who weren't circumsized were treated as heathen and often enslaved, when Kings could tax their colonies without giving them a vote, when women couldn't own property, when blacks couldn't vote.

Progress have never been accepted easily by all, especially by those in power. The absurd part is they often mistake progress as a personal threat when it could be seen as something they would enjoy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Outside of San Fransisco, I do believe I am in the gay capital of the world...well...I live on the other side of it... Provincetown, MA.

I've read most of this thread...(reading long durges is hard for me)...and I must admit, altho I interact nor know very few gays, I have seen enough to separate them into 2 camps.

I've done a few experiments...as I love travelling and learning about culture, I have also been curious about the homosexual culture.

An old boyfriend of mine was doing the Aids bike marathon from Boston to New York a few years back. I decided to volunteer to be one of the many massage therapists for it...travelling in vans and setting up camp for 3 nights, working on the peops every evening.

I had no problem volunteering, after all...this is what I do...but, HOLY MOLY...!!!! icon_eek.gificon_eek.gificon_eek.gif ...I was blown away by the community of gays (and not in a good way)...and I will NEVER...EVER again be amongst a mass of them.

They have their own rhythm and rhyme...and my head was reeling with the diversity and (seemingly sickness) of them.

Not only did I hear conversations of devil worship, see queens dressed up as Jackie Onassis passing out glow in the dark condoms...I was majorly uncomfortable at the out in the open sexual activity that was prevalent. Oh, btw, I was all but ostracized that I was straight!!!

Needless to say, I will never do that again icon_frown.gif:(-->

Last year, I spent 2 weeks at tour directing school in San Fransisco. 2 of my summer clients are a gay couple with 2 little boys (artificially inseminated). The invited me to stay at their house for free as I attended my classes. They live in Twin Peaks...an affluent residencial suburb...and for 2 weeks I spend dinners with them when I got home.

Loving to learn of cultures, I embraced the opportunity to engage with their household.

I was amazed!!!!

There was more love and caring interaction in that house than I have seen in heterosexual relationships!!!! I was impressed...and glad to see it...add it to yet another life experience on my cultural quest.

What did I learn of all this?

There are 2 camps of gays...the thoroughly obnoxious ones that make your skin crawl and cringe for a getaway...and those that are quite "normal" ...

I'm not sure how I feel about this gay marriage issue.

I believe the bulk of it is for marriage perks, myself...and the one gay I have spoken to about this agrees with me.

Being single myself, I know of the struggle it is to make ends meet...and then watch marrieds and marrieds with children get tax breaks and perks, insurance perks...and the list goes on.

Why should a gay with a partner suffer financially?

I don't see love as being in the equation. I don't even see "marriage" as the equation...I see it all as a financial need...and perhaps the government doesn't wanna dish out more benefits and lose more money with this issue either.

I dunno.

To me, marriage is just a piece of paper...and a bunch of perks...

you can love each other and live together...and what's the difference?

And as far as our society is concerned...the whole world is going insane...this is just one more piece of the pie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mstar:

A difficult question to answer. I should imagine if it became a question of some of the large church groupings doing it it might well come about because politicians will then see the votes in it.

But it is most likely that those churches which are hierarchically structured and do not allow participation and voting in decisions at all levels (Catholic, LDS etc) are not going to change their views and practices in this area in a hurry.

The state has no right to make them do so, but nor do they have the right to dictate to the state how its deals with the civil recognition of marriage.

Even speaking in terms of heterosexual marriage there is already a distinction between what churches might call Holy Matrimony and what the state calls Civil Marriage.

Trefor Heywood

"Cymru Am Byth!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wacky:

The are two kind of heterosexuals too!

The gays seeking marriage are the once from your second type of experience. Just as the people who abuse their heterosexuality are not made a reason for denying marriage to those who want it, neither should the former type of gays (I have not encountered the same "shocking" types over here) be made a reason to deny the latter type of gays their rights.

Trefor Heywood

"Cymru Am Byth!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:
Originally posted by Wacky Funster:

I believe the bulk of it is for marriage perks, myself...and the one gay I have spoken to about this agrees with me.

Being single myself, I know of the struggle it is to make ends meet...and then watch marrieds and marrieds with children get tax breaks and perks, insurance perks...and the list goes on.

Why should a gay with a partner suffer financially?


Turn the coin over and look at it from the other side, Wacky--why should you, as a single person, have to bear the brunt of paying those brand-new marriage benefits?

Long Gone argued quite eloquently that the only interest the government really has in subsidizing marriage is the perpetuation of the society through providing every advantage for the raising of children, period. It's like why singles and childless marrieds still have to pay property taxes for schools--it benefits everyone in the long run to have educated children, even if they aren't one's own.

If gays want to call themselves "married", who cares? They can call themselves Queen of Belgium, for all I care. If they can find a church or a justice of the peace that will perform the ceremony for them, more power to them. But cut them a part of an already stretched-thin government budget with no possible return to society as a whole? Forget it! If they adopt children, they already get the same tax deduction as any hetero parent does. There's just no justification for adding what amounts to be just another special-interest entitlement.

The insurance companies, while not supported by taxes, work in a similar way. Single people have historically tended to be a higher risk than married people, for whatever reason. In order to offer everyone the same insurance, the singles get hit harder for premiums than marrieds, based on the current actuarial data. Since there is very little data on the long-term risk mitigation of homosexual marriage, is it fair that they should get a break at your expense when it isn't known yet whether they will turn out to be as low a risk as hetero couples?

[This message was edited by Zixar on March 09, 2004 at 10:20.]

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...