I find it amusing that the number one reason opponents of gay marriage use to support their stance that gay marriage should be banned is because they
want to preserve traditional marriage
and that gay marriage will lead to the moral degradation of our society.
If you are so damned concerned about preserving the institution of marriage why don’t you outlaw divorce? Or what about chastizing the celebrities who make a mockery of marriage, people like Britney Spears. I think this does more to erode the moral fiber and destroy the sanctity of marriage than letting Adam and Steve live in marital bliss will do.
Yahoo! News has an article about how we shouldn’t expect an amendment banning gay marriage anytime soon.
22 responses so far ↓
1 Justin // Dec 27, 2004 at 7:15 pm
Very good point. But there are still plenty of people who desire “D.) All of the above.” They aim to eliminate divorce, and do most definitely chastize celebrities (and common joes) who make a mockery of marriage.
Outlawing divorce wouldn’t account for those cases where one or two of the individuals weren’t in a clear state of mind when they tied the knot.
2 David DeLauro // Dec 28, 2004 at 12:29 pm
If we want to save “traditional” marriage… (which is really a fairly recent tradition) we need to confront the oppression in the current system. People break out of the social norms because they do not work and they do not offer an edifying alternative. Celebrity marriages don’t work because they don’t spend enough time with each other. They same with the “common joe.” There is not enough love in our society to hold “traditional marriage” together. Edicts and laws will not do it either. It seems the gay community just wants to add some love to our society with our society WILL NOT HAVE IT!
peace and love!
3 Justin // Dec 28, 2004 at 2:24 pm
“It seems the gay community just wants to add some love to our society while our society WILL NOT HAVE IT!”
How about:
It seems the kiddie porn community just wants to add some love to our society while our society WILL NOT HAVE IT!
(Disclaimer: meant only to illustrate a point, not draw comparisons. the only similarity I suggest is that of misguided love)
4 David // Dec 28, 2004 at 3:31 pm
And that is a long-shot similarity at best. In fact, they are only similar if your maxim that the love shared between members of the same sex, in a homosexual setting, is mis-guided. I think you would be hard pressed to prove that maxim.
Not to mention, kiddie porn is something that exploits children and is purely carnal and lustful, whereas I don’t think you could say the same about the gay community, which through marriage wants to support monagamy between consenting adults.
5 chuck // Dec 28, 2004 at 4:32 pm
For those interested, here [catholic.com] is an interesting article on this very topic.
peace.
6 David // Dec 28, 2004 at 4:58 pm
Those are fine arguments if you subscribe to a Catholic, or Christian (many sects atleast) school of thought/faith. However, I do have a few issues, the main one is that the assertion the article makes about the claim that many homosexuals claim that they were born that way. The thoughts outlined in that article are perfectly contradictory to my thoughts on the matter.
Its not healthy to live a life where you never release your sexual frustrations. That is one of the things that lead to sexual deviancies(sp). What should these people do that have homosexual thoughts but cannot act on them, because of their faith? They can’t get married, because that would be an unhappy union, because at least one in the partnership is not completely committed to the other.
Whereas every heterosexual on the planet can take part in relationships where sex is a healthy part of the relationship, if you’re homosexual, you are expect to go without for sake of principle?
If you’re against Gay marriage from a religious standpoint, fine. If the Church chooses not to allow Gay’s to wed in their chapels, fine, I have no problem with that. However, to say that a Gay couple cannot wed in a civil ceromony because it goes against God is not valid and really does not jive with American ideals and the seperation of church and state.
This was more like 2 or 3 thoughts in one comment, but I’m lazy today.
7 chuck // Dec 28, 2004 at 5:42 pm
If you’ll humor me w/ a philosophy lesson;-)
First, what is the purpose of marriage in this context?
Second, in the secular sense, what is link between sex and marriage and is that link neccessary?
8 David // Dec 28, 2004 at 5:53 pm
In this context I assume you mean the final paragraph. The purpose of marriage in this context is to legally bind the two consenting adults under the law, and as such extend the couple all the legal protections they are entitled to.
As for the link between sex and marriage, I think I see where you might be going with this, suggesting that the purpose is to soley procreate. However, I would suggest that the link is to physically give yourself to your partner, which is the greatest act of love two humans can perform for one another, whether procreation is possible or not.
For the record, I don’t really see the big deal over the term marriage and don’t understand why Civil Union won’t suffice. I understand that there are a number of religious connotations about the word marriage, and maybe civil union would be a better way to describe it. But if thats the case, then Marriage should be a religous instituation only, and the only way to be married would be through a church. If not through a church, then hetero- or homosexual, the union would be a civil union. I know thats a little discombobulated, so I can expand on that thought further if need be.
9 chuck // Dec 28, 2004 at 5:58 pm
I’m starting to see where you’re coming from…
“…all the legal protections they are entitled to.” which ones?
I must have misworded my question about sex and marriage, my question is, why must one be married to have sex if one has no faith? (sorry bout that)
10 David // Dec 28, 2004 at 6:05 pm
One doesn’t have to be married to have sex. Didn’t mean to imply that one did need to. But one could have a faith that condones homosexuality and may want to have a union with the person they love underneath the canopy of their respective church.
Furthermore, because one may not have a faith does not mean that the person doesn’t/won’t have the desire to declare their love for their partner in every way possible. If there is a more public forum than marriage or civil union to show this, I’m interested to hear what it is. Just saying that in our society, its great that people are a couple, but they are just boyfriend-girlfriend/boyfriend-boyfriend/girlfriend-girlfriend until they are wed.
As for the legal protections, there are a number of laws which help give married couples breaks. Things such as health insurance (which some providers are now, on their own volition extending coverage to same sex partners) and property law are the two big ones that come to mind.
11 chuck // Dec 28, 2004 at 6:20 pm
Good stuff.. more questions of course.
Regarding “As for the legal protections, there are a number of laws which help give married couples breaks.” What would be the purpose, from the giver’s standpoint, of giving married people breaks?
Regarding the second paragraph, why is a legal certificate necessary? Isn’t the statement that “this is my partner until we die” good enough?
12 David // Dec 28, 2004 at 6:29 pm
I’m not quite sure I understand your first question, would the giver, for example be someone like the health insurance company? If they took away family coverage altogether and didn’t do discounts for married couples and their children then this would be a non-issue. But we should all have the same protection under the law, so if Jack and Jill can have joint coverage, so should Adam and Steve. Does that make sense?
For the second question, if that statement, “this is my partner until we die”, really did suffice, then why would you both getting married? If that statement really did convey the feeling enough, then what is the purpose of a couple getting married?
Unfortunately I have a reason for why the legal certificate is necessary. Same reason that its necissary for heterosexual couples, in case things don’t work out, one part isn’t left out in the cold, without legal recourse against the former partner.
13 Justin // Dec 28, 2004 at 8:02 pm
“Same reason that its necessary for heterosexual couples, in case things dont work out, one part isnt left out in the cold, without legal recourse against the former partner.”
So basically, the legal certificate is used to break down marriage. It provides an out. It effectively decreases the love that each individual gives from 100% to 50% or less. If you have the means to retrieve what you’ve given, has it really been given?
In that case, I couldn’t care less for the legal certificate. THAT’s what is encouraging divorce.
14 chuck // Dec 29, 2004 at 12:49 pm
Let me attempt to recap then, you believe marriage fulfills two functions:
First, legal binding. Couldn’t this essentially be taken care of by taking away healthcare provided to families with children (as you mentioned) and having a will to take care of the partner’s property, postmortem?
Second, as a relationship legitimizer. Justin’s makes a good point and further, isn’t a relationship legitimized by actions rather than a legal document?
15 David // Dec 29, 2004 at 12:55 pm
Yes. I’ll agree with both those summaries. In which case, aside from the legal binding, is there any real purpose to actually being married? I agree with Justin’s ascertation that its the actions and feelings in a relationship that matter much more that than the legal document.
So this makes me curious to another point that I was thinking of the other day. If I’m in a committed relationship, I’m in love with a person, and in my case, am in the process of planning a wedding (much like you Chuck), then if I make love with my partner, is it really pre-marital sex? The only thing missing is the title, and we would have that if it weren’t for trying to appease family members that want us to have a full wedding with all the regallia. That might be worth a new post…
16 chuck // Dec 29, 2004 at 1:09 pm
You’ve pretty much summed up my point. Without faith there is no need for marriage.
The reason I believe it is premarital sex is that I believe there is a sacrement that is encorporated w/ marriage, a bond that can not be broken, and a vow to be open to the possiblity of children. We have two different ideas of what marriage is, so no wonder we can’t agree!:-D
So why the debate about marriage?
17 David // Dec 29, 2004 at 1:15 pm
Well, it started out as a debate about homosexuality and marriage, but quickly morphed into a discussion of marriage at large. But on the whole, we can’t say that without faith there is no need for marriage, because in our society there are non-faith based reasons to be married. Its a nice hypothetical, to say that there are not, but that not being the case, then there needs to be support, in our legal system, for a union between two people regardless of sexual orientation.
Which brings me back to a previous statement, if the church doesn’t support the marriage, then the church shouldn’t perform the union and doesn’t need to recognize it. The government on the other hand is a different story.
18 chuck // Dec 29, 2004 at 1:24 pm
Well, we’ve successfully (I think) taken marriage and sex out of the picture. Now we’re looking for a “Union” where a couple of people get the same rights as a married couple. So if two bachelors are good friends and decide they’ll never marry, but still want the advantages of getting married, they could get a civil union and they’d be all set.
Make sense?
19 David // Dec 29, 2004 at 1:31 pm
Works fine for me, which is the spirit of the civil union. I don’t understand the hoolabalou that people make when arguing over the word marriage, where the word itself means nothing more than a title.
20 chuck // Dec 29, 2004 at 2:25 pm
I think our healthcare system is crap, so I’m not even going to argue about it, and if two buddies want to make sure their belongings end up w/ the one that lives the longest, swell by me.
For the sake of a short term peace treaty, I’ll not start arguing about adoptive rights :-).
Good blog post buddy. Clarity where only clouds existed previously!
21 David // Dec 29, 2004 at 2:38 pm
Good call. Being adopted I have some extremely strong and personal feelings on the matter, and I have a distinct feeling that we will very much be in disagreement again. So we’ll save that for another post
22 David DeLauro // Dec 30, 2004 at 11:21 am
Just to clarify a little about why people are arguing about civil union and marriage. Civil unions do not offer the same legal benefits and responsabilities as marriages do. If they were exactly the same I don’t think people would care what its called (although those queer people who believe in God might). Civil Unions really are a lesser form of the preferred union, marriage.
Leave a Comment