51.Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Saturday, August 07, 2010
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Thursday, April 01, 2010
Sunday, February 07, 2010
Now that explicit anti-gay animus is an albatross, those who oppose gay civil rights are driven to invent ever loopier rationales for denying those rights, whether in the military or in marriage. Hatch, for instance, limply suggested to Mitchell that a repeal of “don’t ask” would lead to gay demands for “special rights.” Such arguments, both preposterous and disingenuous, are mere fig leaves to disguise the phobia that can no longer dare speak its name. If gay Americans are to be granted full equality, the flimsy rhetorical camouflage must be stripped away to expose the prejudice that lies beneath.
- Marriage as a religious institution is irrelevant to marriage as a secular institution.
- Therefore, marriage as a secular institution is necessarily what society determines it to be.
- The United States of America has specifically defined marriage in federal law as a union of one man and one woman.
- Civil rights are those rights which expressly enumerated by the U.S. Constitution and are considered to be unquestionable; deserved by all people under all circumstances, especially without regard to race, creed, color, gender, and disabilities. (wiktionary)
- Marriage, as a civil right, is still regulated and withheld in particular circumstances; that is, it is not available to anyone at any time and in any form merely because it is considered to be a civil right. This is not questioned in many cases (as in minors, for example).
- Marriage, as defined by federal law, is currently available without regard to sexual orientation. My own situation as a gay man married to a woman exemplifies this fact. I have exercised my civil right to marry, and believing the federal definition of marriage to be accurate and appropriate in no way takes civil rights away from anyone.
- Therefore, one referring to changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions as extending a “special right” is a logical and consistent position. Lobbing insults at people in place of addressing their argument makes the disingenuousness seem a lot closer to the source.
- Society treats people unequally in many respects and this is often a good thing.
- People pay different taxes depending on their income. It would be considered ridiculous for the wealthy to refuse to pay taxes by appealing to equality under their civil rights; marriage as a social institution is much more concerned with money and legalities than it is with love and companionship, and may be comparable with tax rebates given to only a subset of citizens based on arbitrary criteria.
- People are treated differently because of their race and background in the academic and business world. This is often to deliberately favor non-white people, but this inequality is appropriate and well-considered.
- Those who oppose affirmative action often have legitimate points. They are not automatically racist.
- Therefore, defining marriage as society has defined it, including excluding certain couples from marrying, is neither violating civil rights nor necessarily inappropriate.
- What is fair and good is debatable. Unfortunately, an increasing number who come to the discussion refuse to discuss the issues occupying themselves instead with dogmatic assertions that echo the close-minded inflexibility they so criticize in their religious counterparts.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Gays have children these days, of course they do, and not always to accessorise an outfit. Some gay couples adopt; others follow twisting paths to biological parenthood, often quite expensively, with the involvement of test tubes and cash changing hands. It is, really, a sort of snook to the system of nature. Shooting for the net without the chore of running with the ball. It’s just not for me....
Some will dismiss it as heresy. I have long argued that homosexuality is natural but abnormal, to a torrent of hostility from gay friends who refuse to acknowledge that what you are and what stake you hold in society are not the same.
Loving your own sex occurs in nature, without artificial triggers. But it is still not average behaviour. Homosexuality is an aberration; a natural aberration. Gays are a minority and minorities, though sometimes vocal, do not hold sway.
I wince when gays describe boyfriends as “husbands”, subverting a solemn institution created to provide stability for child-rearing. Besides, it seems highly perverse that gays should fight for freedom from the bonds of heterosexual morality and then set to copying their oppressors by creating similar contracts of their own.
Does this mean that I no longer like men? No, of course not, and I won’t pretend. But in the streets and avenues of this country there must be many husbands whose interests are divided but whose choices are determined not by sexuality but emotionality.
Would I be a good husband? I hope so. Would I keep faith? Well, I would try. The same siren voices to stray call to all men, all the time. I would be no different.