Quote Originally Posted by Wishazu View Post
Do people really care that much whether homosexuals can marry?
Homosexuals care, because it's really obscene that other people are allowed to vote on whether or not they have a right to marry. Kind of like when some people said black people couldn't marry whites.... or each other. Some heterosexuals care, because they can't imagine why it would possibly harm society, or why treating gay people as inferior is warranted. Or popular, for that matter. Some people care because they don't like to picture gay people together. Some people care because they are worried their god will spank them if they don't object to it. And of course, there's macho peer pressure to hate on those in the minority and unlike themselves.


And if you'll permit me, I'm about to describe my thoughts (rant) on this issue to no one in particular.


I note that some people seem to get all indignant and object, saying that comparing "what those gays do" to traditional marriage is insulting. Which I have to ask; what is it that they do that is so different? Do they kiss each other? Spend time together? Raise a family together? Worry about stress at work together? Care for their community together? Grow old together? Sounds pretty normal to me. I actually am kind of offended at some of the definitions of marriage proposed now, for the specific purpose of preventing gay rights and "protecting" something that wouldn't be protected, but rather banned, by Prop 8.

For example, I note that some people describe the purpose of marriage as to have children; which seems rather strange to me. Some people get married and are still undecided as to whether they want to have children or not. My father recently got re-married, to his long time sweetheart. They are too old to have children. Is their marriage a sham? What about those who can't have kids or choose not to? Is their marriage a sham? I also note that people often have children out of wedlock. Especially in the case of another "traditional values" favorite, keeping the child a rapist forcibly implants in your body. Seems to me that child was born out of wedlock, and for good reason. But I suppose since there was no marriage there, that child doesn't exist? When parents divorce, do they saw the child in half? I don't think so. When gay people have children, and many, many of them do (and no one seems to dispute that they have a right to do so... which makes it awfully suspect when they object to their right to get married) those children wish to grow up in stable homes. Why would marriage between their parents harm these children? So it's utterly baffling how having children should affect the rights of gays in negative fashion. In fact, under this metric, it would seem to be anti-family to deny the right of gay parents with children, or who want to have children, to wed each other.

If the implication is that gay people can't/shouldn't have children, I would like people with such an opinion to go up to a child with gay parents and tell them that their parents are different and inferior to you and your spouse, and that your children are better off than the child of a gay couple, and that there is something totally wrong with that family, and they should be broken up and not allowed to raise their kids and not allowed to have more. I guarantee you, even the most hardened anti-gay person out there will have difficulty with that. And if you could actually go through with it, I'd like to reverse that challenge, because I'd really rather not subject that child to more bigotry than they will already be exposed to in their life. Especially coming from an adult that supposedly is looking out for their best interest. How is a child supposed to view a world that hates them before they even meet them? Or hates their parents before they even meet them? Or believes that their parents have no right to raise them? Or believes that their parents might love each other, but it isn't the real, true love that other people have, it's a different, inferior kind of love, that should be opposed and shunned.

I can't imagine how pro-family a person has to be, before they are that anti-family.

So if we divorce ourselves from the silly notion that marriage is necessarily about children (where you automatically lose, because gays have a right to have children and raise them together, and straight couples don't necessarily have children) then you have to focus on the other aspects of marriage.

Love: It's amazing that in a nation with drive-through wedding chapels and divorce lawyers in every town and television shows based entirely on how much married couples cheat on one another, that one thinks they have the moral authority to question how "in love" other people are, and must be, before they get married. This sacred institution, as some have called it, has been made less sacred not by the gays, but by irresponsible and disingenuous people of all orientations, mostly straight in this case, obviously. I challenge someone to go up to a gay couple that has spent 10 years together and suggest that they know, for a fact, that this couple doesn't really love each other. It's just a phase that they will grow out of. Their feelings aren't real; it's all a charade. The purpose of which, of course, is to be a big drama queen and rub in the faces of the establishment how rebellious they are. Surely that must be the reason. I would apologize for using a straw man argument, if only that were the case. I truly wish that were the case. Sadly, this absurd notion is actually considered to be why gay people stay together, by some "traditional" people. Not all believe it, maybe not a majority, but this sad excuse for a rational reason is believed by far too many people.

"It's not real, it's just a phase. They don't really love each other." It is remarkable that one can say that without even meeting said couples.

Religion: Another reason given for why gays cannot get married. It's insulting to the religions who do not accept homosexuality.

Well, that assumes that all religions denounce homosexuality, or that you have to be religious to get married. Aren't I, a non-religious person, allowed to be wed? Well if I am, doesn't that mean I don't have to accept the tenets of some popular religion to get married? That I am allowed to have a secular service and still call it marriage? If that is the case, then why is religion being touted as a reason gays can't get married? Last I checked, there was a separation of church and state. The state recognizing marriage between same-sex partners is not the same as your church recognizing it. Though, if you live in this state, you have to recognize that the state considers it marriage. What a shame. Don't worry, you can still harbor your dislike and prejudice in your heart; the state can't stop you from doing that.

Legal rights: Very few people are arguing that gays shouldn't be able to see each other in the hospital, or be afforded other rights that married people have. They simply object to calling it "marriage". I don't care if you call it banana creme pie in your own household, but if your only sticking point with marriage between gays is that it is called marriage, then you have your priorities backward.

If you agree that:

  • Gay people aren't sick and don't need to be cured of "the gay", they are ordinary people like you and me, allowed to live and be gay (not like they have a choice)
  • Gay people have a right to be with one another in a relationship, and that what they do in the bedroom is none of your business (emphatically so, it seems)
  • Gay people have children, and this is just a fact you can't really argue with (and they have these kids with or without your approval, as if they needed it)
  • Gay people are allowed to raise their own children (Who else is going to raise them, the TV machine?)
  • Gay people don't have to be religious to get married (Seems kinda obvious...)
  • Gay people should otherwise be treated equally in every respect (sure, you can see your partner in the hospital... just don't call it marriage, call it a civil union)


Then it seems as though you approve of (or do not wish to oppose) EVERY.... SINGLE.... ASPECT..... of homosexual pair bonding. The only hang-up you have is the word marriage.

Sure, being gay, living in a gay relationship, having relations, having legal rights that pertain to their partner, having and raising children, that's all okay. But the word marriage is just wrong to apply to gays, you say? What else do you want to call it? You don't care as long as it isn't the word 'marriage'?

Fine, they will call it "marriage", using the traditional gay spelling with the silent and invisible letter T. It's a different kind of marriage with a different definition, just spelled exactly the same (if you overlook the invisible letter T) and treated exactly the same by society and the state. Problem solved.

I would admire the principled stance against gay marriage, if only there were some principles involved.