It boggles my mide to hear the old Gay marriage will ruin traditional marriage! I fail to see how, and studies in Europe show this is the exact opposite of the truth, it helps strengthen 'traditional' marriage. I just read an article that I think needs to be read, especially by the right wing. My favorite part is this:
In premodern Europe, marriage usually began as a property arrangement, was in its middle mostly about raising children, and ended about love. Few couples in fact married 'for love,' but many grew to love each other in time as they jointly managed their household, reared their offspring, and shared life's experiences. Nearly all surviving epitaphs to spouses evince profound affection. By contrast, in most of the modern West, marriage begins about love, in its middle is still mostly about raising children (if there are children), and ends - often - about property, by which point love is absent or a distant memory. (Boswell, _Same Sex Unions in PreModern Europe_ xxi-xxii)
So traditionally, marriage is about property, then why are all these right wing fanatics so afraid of same sex unions? Traditional marriage doesn't sound to good to me (that's actually why Jess and I got hitched in the first place, stuff and legal reasons.) I know, I know, God says it's bad, its bad! Well, please remember that we are a secular Nation and by forcing votes on this matter (which will eventually get overturned in court) you ARE forcing your religion on others... in a FREE Nation. I guess it's only free if you're a right wing Christian... Don't give me that crap that its a Christian Nation either, the Puritans did found the country, they just moved here... and then fucked with the locals, which if current thinking and DNA are true, were actually Europeans in part...
Here's the whole article, over on Casaubon's Book.
Best,
Brett
I'm leaving the comments open for now... but I WILL close them on this if it gets hostile. The US might be 'free' but I'm god here;)
12 comments:
Well this is a hot button issue, so keep in mind this is my opinion and is not meant to throw gas on a fire, but I know those who disagree seldom have the capacity to listen to differing views, but honestly I'm not being snarky.
Practically legalizing gay marriage would be a nightmare. Have you looked at our divorce courts? Now imagine throwing legalized gay marriage in there. Homosexual relations tend to differ in general from how heteros practice long term relations. Do a little research on the stability and monogamous aspects of gay vs. straight relations. Now throw children into the mix and you have a disastrous social problem to be decided by a ill equipped legal system. And we will pay the bill with our taxes.
Gay relationships are not that stable (remember both Rosie and Ellen declaring their unions were for life and should be seen as a standard that would show the world that gay relationships are just as stable as straight?-uhoh-backfired big time.) I say this not to be mean, just I know way too many homosexual friends and family who admit to this fact.
Here is a shocker-lots of gays don't want gay marriage legalized. It would create a major problem for the level of commitment they are willing to give.
Okay now that the courts have doubled their work load with gay divorce and child custody cases lets also start suing pastors and priests, churches and denominations for not recognizing or performing homosexual unions. Is the legal system screwed up completely yet? But wait there is more.
Now throw the extra burden onto employee health care. Ever compare hetero to homo average medical expenses? Yikes!
Remember most social changes which are pro-gay have happened in our country not because of science or proof, but because of pro-gay legal actions. They pretty much sued themselves sane. That is correct, homosexuality was changed from a mental abnormality to being a natural choice not based off of any new scientific evidence but because the gay liberation movement pressured the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from its official list of mental disorders.
Also keep in mind all rights and privileges in terms of inheritance, wills, property ownership, etc. straight couples enjoy are available to homosexuals who take the time to do the proper legal paperwork.
At the heart of the matter is the desire to be accepted and affirmed as normal, because how nature has designed the sexes this is never a possibility for the homosexual. It is physically impossible.
These are just a few pragmatic reasons. They don't touch on the religious or moral aspects of the issue.
-Steve
Hey Steve, as a homosexual man I do wonder, how exactly do straight medical cost very from gay medical costs? Or are you implying that just because one is gay the person mentioned is most likely infected with HIV and would thus need more money for the treatment of it? If so then you are as prejudice as you are dense, there are no medical cost differences, it's just a bad arguement which honest to god can't be used as an arguement unless you imply that most gay people have aids.
I have never met a fellow gay person who has been against same-sex marriage (even though I have met a lot who question pride these days).
I would also like to state that gay relationships are none the less unstable as any other relationship, just because a boy and a girl are dating it'll mean it'll work longer, it's very individual and it's impossible to say one will last more than the other. No relationship is or will work better than the other each of them have a true chance, that is a fact.
Costody is also a problem which will most likely be treated as if the couple in care of the child (implying that the parents are man and woman) are of both sexes, because at this day of age the father is not automaticly seen as lesser of a parent to the child (at least in modern areas of the world) and it will be a trial to see who is fit enough to take care of the child. So it won't be any different if two mothers, two fathers or a mother and a father step into the court room, it will be the same trial for them all.
I honestly think you should get to know gay people a bit more, it's obvious that you have some form of "they should be happy with what they have" thinking. I am not any more different from you and what you mentioned is partially arguements that were used against "inter-racial marriage" just a few decades ago. It's true that your arguements do not touch religion or moral aspects, but they are prejudice none the less.
- The Artist
Steve, that is indeed your opinion, however wrong or incorrect it is. Just because it's an opinion doesn't mean it's right.
From Wiki:
A study on short-term same-sex marriages in Norway and Sweden found that divorce rates were higher in same-sex marriages than in opposite-sex marriages, and that unions of lesbians are considerably less stable, or more dynamic, than unions of gay men. Conversely, in the United Kingdom the divorce rate is a mere one percent for gays and is much lower in Denmark.[1][2][3] The authors cited that this may be due to same-sex couples "non- involvement in joint parenthood", "lower exposure to normative pressure about the necessity of life-long unions" as well as differing motivations for getting married.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_of_same-sex_couples
So basically divorce rates vary. I find it strange that the male couples are actually more stable, not what I was expecting. But a 1 percent divorce rate is WAY below the 50% for man/woman marriage. Well that just contradicts most of your argument.
Another recent study shows the children of Lesbian couples to actually be BETTER off than even the children of straits… maybe your wife should trade you in, think of the children!
As for the tax crap I fail to see how that is even an issue as divorce is paid for by the people getting divorced and not the government. Just like a marriage.
Yes men are more promiscuous. But we also fear commitment. Since they are not being forced to marry, logic would say that marriage would be less common between men, unless they actually wanted it. Just like regular men.
You seem to want to make gay men out as a separate species, for most the only difference is who they are attracted to. You don't deserve special status because of who you like, we all deserve the same right to be happy (or unhappy;)) You cry and complain about special status for gays yet you are granting it to them, which is fine for you as long as they are kept beneath you. If you can't see the hypocrisy in that then maybe you need to do a little less praying and a bit more learning.
Best,
Brett
For anyone who gets the willies thinking about same-sex marriage, here's the way I think of it: take away gender, and what is the difference from non-same-sex marriage?
Three years ago we went to the county courthouse to apply for our marriage license. It was just an old computer in the basement with a form for us to fill out, one side for "bride" and one side for "groom". Each side also had a box for gender, so groom could be M or F, and bride could be M or F. We tested it, and you could have both be M or both be F. That's all there is to it. No other differences for same-sex couples (and why would there be?).
Now, same sex marriage was banned in my state, so I'm sure if we'd actually turned it in like that, it wouldn't have gone through. The point is, there's no extra infrastructure needed for same sex marriage. Just take gender out of the question, and suddenly there's no issue, legally speaking.
Exactly Suzy. They seem to think that passing such laws will make their Churches preform the weddings, when this is NOT the case. They are exempt if they choose to be, no one is forcing them.
The real problem is the one they refuse to mention that by committing and getting married, homosexuals actually show some form of morals and the good religious folk have been telling themselves for thousands of years that gays don't do that. In a sense they are being proven wrong and they can't have that. Messes with their preconceived notions.;)
Best,
Brett
That, and they think it's 'icky'.
Brett
I find it inconceivably sad that a convicted felon on death row is allowed to something that law abiding gay people cannot: get married.
It's a sad commentary that this is even an issue for some people.
Well, I did state it is my opinion. I was appealing to pragmatic social reasons only. I wasn't commenting on anyone's feelings, or ability to love or be loved.
Though I could also take the time to walk you through the Norway figures, the general decline in marriage in general, the decline in children, but it wouldn't prove causation, it shows an overall decline in the value of marriage in countries which support gay marriage. Again it would take a willingness to actually look at the figures and the long term social studies which have been done. For the most part I find people only have the patience to search for a sound bite which supports their preconceived view.
The Artist, wow, those are some major misrepresentations of my motives and my intelligence. I wouldn't assume anyone to have HIV in a homosexual pairing, that is just bizarre. But okay, if it helps you discredit me in your own mind rock on. Keep in mind the latest HIV drugs hitting the market are better and cheaper than just a few years ago. Heck I have a close HIV+ gay relative who spends less on his medicine than I do on my acid reflux pills. Anyways, taking HIV out of the picture and looking at cancer rates, psychiatric care, alcohol and drug dependency rates, etc. Are you aware of the research results comparing the average medical expenses over a 20 year period between gay and straight males? (not sure why studies for women are not usually published)
I'm not sure if facts and figures really matter much. As you can see simply by stating an opinion I was immediately painted as a homophobe and a few other silly misrepresentations.
Oh well, there have been so many hateful and wrong things said and done by those who disagree with the homosexual lifestyle that I can understand the tendency to overcompensate and treat everyone like a moron or a bigot. My gay friends know my views and we argue, but they know me as a person and I know them and at the end of the day we are still friends and we agree to disagree. In online communities you tend not to get the same fair or considerate treatment.
One final question for Brett, now for someone who holds evolution as the supreme law of the land, would a trait like homosexuality be viewed as a positive trait for propagating? If the ultimate goal is survival of the fittest and to pass on DNA material would a strictly materialistic worldview look upon homosexual characteristics as a positive?
Remember my view is homosexuals and heterosexuals are both sexual deviants in need of understanding, love, and grace. We all screw up just in different ways. I'm no better or no worse than anyone else in this discussion.
-Steve
Canadian Rainbow Health Coalition is obviously a pro-gay Canadian organization. I'll use their figures because gay marriage is legal in Canada it removes some of the blaiming of social acceptance to contributing to the numbers (in other words sometimes it is stated GLBT individuals are depressed because they can't marry and the inability to marry causes the problems)
* Life expectancy of gay/bisexual men in Canada is 20 years less than the average; that is 55 years.
* GLB people commit suicide at rates from 2 to 13.9 times more often than average.
* GLB people have smoking rates 1.3 to 3 times higher than average.
* GLB people have rates of alcoholism 1.4 to 7 times higher than average.
* GLB people have rates of illicit drug use 1.6 to 19 times higher than average.
* GLB people show rates of depression 1.8 to 3 times higher than average.
* Gay and bisexual men (MSM) comprise 76.1% of AIDS cases.
* Gay and bisexual men (MSM) comprise 54% of new HIV infections each year.
* If one uses Statistics Canada figure of 1.7% of GLB becoming infected, that is 26 times higher than average.
* GLB people are at a higher risk for anal cancers.
Just thought it might be good to have actual facts (from the pro-gay side) which support my health care cost claims
-Steve
The Norway figures can be used both ways. Stanley Kurtz has done two outstanding articles on the decline of marriage in Scandinavian countires. The counter voice which I think Brett would agree with is M. V. Lee Badgett. Both have extensive credentials. Kurtz does a lot less of drawing unverifiable causation conclusions, and I generally agree with him. But it is a lengthy read if you want to get both sides of the argument.
I won't post links just google their names with gay marriage and you should find their articles.
-Steve
Steve....
Once again it's the I heard it from this guy shit. Commentators are NOT scientists, they are NOT impartial and it's all irrelevant anyways. You can not give on group rights and NOT give it to all group, it's against the basic principals of the nation.
The gay population is small, even if half the population divorced it would be a drop in the bucket compared to the straights. What about the soldiers? Young soldiers have an incredible divorce rate, should we stop allowing them to get married? It's the SAME thing.
What if i told you I was bisexual, or that Jess is real gay or, horror, a man? How could you say these things about people you actually know... You can't get over this 'choice' thing, but YOU can never know for sure. You can't read other peoples minds.
I try to keep it together when I hear you talk about this stuff. You are a nice guy, but that book of yours has warped your mind.
You keep trying to make them sub human, you use the the same arguments that the old south used when they opposed mixed race marriage. It disturbing. This is a CIVIL marriage, you're church has no say in that. That's what you're problem is, you want control because you're stupid vapid book says so... I'm done arguing the point that you will never hear.
Brett
Post a Comment