Whewee, that's good debatin'!
Arditezza said:
No. The primary reason for marriage, is to form a family unit. A unit which breeds to further our population and society. Gays cannot, without outside help, form a family unit. They can form a couple, which they can do without marriage as well. They can still be there for you when you come home at night, care for each others successes and comforts your failures. Marriage does not alter that in any way. You can do all those things without it. However, if it's society's blessing that you need, then you have deeper issues than love. If you are hindered by society in loving one another, I think you don't have a clue as to what love really is. So what is the reason again that you feel the need to champion marriage for gays?
And, I also do not believe that people unable to reproduce should be getting "help" to reproduce either. There is a good solid reason that science isn't allowing you to reproduce, you should listen to it. That goes for both infertile people, and homosexuals.
I am married, and I have two children. I married to have a family and children, and have been successful in my endevor. I am also an atheist, extremely open-minded and independant. I am not a feminist because I find them also to be too extreme. We are already equal, we just need to believe that. Just like gays, we have earned our equality and now just have to be comfortable in the way that it unfolds. You already are equal, and a piece of paper explaining that you now have the right to marry isn't going to change that. I have not heard a good solid argument for allowing gays to marry yet. But I am still listening.
No state other than Hawaii has legal marriages between homosexuals, but several states recognize a civil union between two gay people. In almost every state, you can have them on your insurance as well even if you are not married. Just clearing up the poster that say several states allow gay marriage by law.
People are recognizing that gays exist, and are tolerating the behavior. But we do not need to put our seal of approval on it since we feel that it is immoral. Do what you want, but don't shove your morality down our throats. We aren't asking you to change your sex life to validate and suit our morals, why are you trying to get us to pass laws to validate your morals? It's well and good that you are gay, but don't force me to approve of it. You will never get majority vote if you go about looking to turn the tables on society. You must convince society that the tables themselves don't exist, and actually form a platform to stand on other than, "Well they can do it, why can't we?!?".
Arditezza, in the course of our discussion here, I have come to appreciate and respect your position, and hope you feel the same about mine. I'm always impressed when someone is able to juggle a marriage, a career and kids, and I would never minimize or belittle that person's very important role in our society. I'm further impressed when I'm able to have a debate (and not a spittle-flecked, flame-riddled argument) with someone on an important issue like this one. I appreciate your willingness to listen and assure you that I am listening as well. I've reached a point in my life where "agreeing to disagree" seems facile and lazy rather than wise, and having opportunities to hash these things out in a civil (albeit spirited) fashion is fantastic!
I do not require society's seal of approval to love anyone, nor do I feel driven to curry their favor. However, this does not mean I will silently acquiesce to their opprobrium (silent or otherwise). To me, a marriage license is not a permission slip; if anything, it's a hall pass:
"Hello, fellow American! I realize your set of beliefs and values is in sharp contrast to my own in some ways, but please recognize that this difference is merely a difference and not (at least in the eyes of the law)
carte blanche to judge me as a wrongheaded inferior! Thanks!"
For goodness sake, one can command a powerful and thorough knowledge of topics such as physics or linguistics without obtaining a degree of any kind in them, but if one would like to pursue a career in those fields, one may find such a "piece of paper" helpful. Similarly, if one wishes to protect their family (and many types of family exist; there's the family into which one is born, and family that one gathers as one goes through life, which as an adoptee, I'm sure you recognize), distribute property, share responsibility for adopted children, and, yes, navigate the mundane financial and material concerns that crop up when people decide to share their lives, then having that little piece of paper is a great and deserved thing. Yes, myriad legal options exist to cobble together a simulacrum of the benefits marriage bestows, but due to its patchwork nature, such a "straw" union is susceptible to manipulation or even disregard by our legal system. Many are the tales of heartbreak and despair resulting from such disregard, particularly when the same family that has disowned a partner for decades suddenly appears with a flutter of gorecrow wings to snatch away not only the monetary inheritence, but the sentimental treasures of a life spent with one's love.
Obviously, the law has applied this same disregard to heterosexual couples (Anna Nicole Smith, anyone?), but GLBT folks are more susceptible in light of their status.
It's not validation we're seeking (you are right, of course, in your assertion that we are already inherently equal, and I thank you for your candor), but
recognition of that validity in the legal sense.
Many people have conjured the ghosts of past civil rights struggles to underline their position on this issue, and with good reason. The battles for suffrage and against disenfranchisement, segregation and bigotry have much in common with the struggle of the GBLT movement; those who fought to improve the lot of women and minorities faced similar opposition to that faced by us today. Absent a religious dogma, morality is, by definition, a set of established guidelines and concepts concerning correct and incorrect behavior based on communally agreed standards. In this country's past, the prevailing opinion was that women could not be trusted with the vote, did not belong in the workplace, and were inherently inferior to men. Most folks now regard this as malarkey (and rightly so), but would this be the case if the early women's rights leaders had caved to the disapproval of their opposition? I think not. To cite another example, what about historic persecution of Christians? (Lest you think me a dullard, I realize you are an athiest, but I'm making this point from an historical perspective) The Romans drove them into the sewers with their relentless need to stomp them out (although, as it turns out, they should have been more worried about their lead plumbing than the tormented Christians huddled in the catacombs
), but they persevered. Being a Christian went against quite a few very cherished Roman notions: polytheism, deification of the emperor (although that seems to be making a comeback
), loving one's enemy rather than enslaving him,
et hoc genus omne. Talk about immoral! Now, the Christians were "tolerated" (despite their immoral behavior) by some, but most "right-thinking" folks considered them an oddity, a sect of peaceniks bowing to the Son of the desert God of the Jews, and a lot of people wanted them scoured from the empire before they started corrupting the kids with their wacky ways. The centuries between then and now have created a world where Christianity has flourished, and Rome declined. Rather than seeking to "overcome," Christians have stoically endured (although they did eventually learn to pick up the sword), which is the point I am trying to make with this long-winded tale. Civil rights gains have come at the expense of both revolt and patient effort.
Minds change. Values change. Our understanding of what it means to be a human being, and our obligations and inaliable rights as such, undergoes evolution. Hundreds of years ago, my ancestors were feeding the hearts of their enemies to the sun so that the maize would grow tall and strong in his light. Less than two hundred years ago, it was perfectly "right" to buy and sell human beings in the streets of our cities, and unthinkable to propose that these beasts of burden deserved basic human respect, let alone civil niceties such as marriage or the vote. I cannot speak to the future; I will not offer conjecture on such slippery-slope fantasies as toddlers driving tanks on the expressway or llamas marrying marmosets at the local McTemple. All I can do is point to the past and say "Look. More importantly,
see. When people who are different from whatever society has capriciously decreed to be "normal" suffer for it, they will strive to better their situation. With hard work, luck and perseverence, things not only can change, but will."
I would never be so foolish as to try to "turn the tables," because we're all standing on the same table, and I don't fancy six weeks in traction. Even if I disagree with another American, we're still part of the same "family," if you will. What's bad for me is certainly bad for them as well, even if it's not immediately apparent. To paraphrase the quote, we must all hang together, or we will certainly hang separately.
The platform on which I stand is this: as a human being, I am free to live and love as I will. As a woman, I am free to reproduce (or adopt, of course) or not as I see fit. As an American, I am free to pursue my happiness. I'm not guaranteed that happiness, of course, but I am guaranteed the pursuit of it. It's never been about "You can do it, so why can't we?" - it's about "Your right to pursue your happiness finds its logical end at the point at which it impedes my ability to do the same." Legislation is the loom we use to weave our disparate opinions into a tapestry of morality that applies to all; as I've said elsewhere, there will always be issues that create disagreement, but our society gives us the option of foregoing the changing of other people's opinions by changing the law. Currently, it's illegal for GLBT people to gain the benefits of marriage I outlined above; part of pursuing happiness is, for me, changing that. I don't want to change the way anyone else thinks, or dictate their behavior with regard to marriage. Just as there's no guarantee of happiness, there's no guarantee of "nothing will ever happen to challenge my view of a long-established tradition." Getting that "piece of paper" isn't a tool for castigating those who disagree with me; I don't want a rider to the law that says "now all people who disagree with her position on gay marriage will be lined up and mooned by Dennis Franz."
What I DO want is the right to fully participate as a citizen of my beloved country, and not be forced to create a mishmash equivalent because those who disagree with who and what I am have declared that only their side is good (or "right," or valid, or virtuous, or "God-tested, Mother approved," or what have you). Morality notwithstanding, the presumption that one's stance on a given issue is not only a superior, but the only acceptable, stance, is, at a minimum, unthinkingly arrogant. I do not strive to overturn the apple cart - I just want Granny Smith vendors to have the same vendor's rights as those selling Jonagolds (or, in some cases, crabapples.
).
