Gay Marriage

Ronin · 10-11-2006, 03:31 PM

Hey guys, I wasn't sure where to put this, but this seemed like a good place. So I was walking home from class through grounds (what you poor non-UVA alumnis would call "campus"

) and I noticed a crowd of people arguing. As I drew closer, I could see a man holding a huge sign saying "God" near the top and "there is a hell" near the bottom. As I got yet closer I could see that in between was some smaller print talking about how homosexuality was a sin. THe man was loudly preaching and various students were arguing with him - it was a circus. THe provecation for all this? A small table, a few feet away from the furor, covered with a rainbow tablecloth and manned by a couple of students handing out flyers asking students to "vote no in November." I stopped to ask them (there was hardly anyone around the table) what the excitement was about and found out that Virginia's got a referendum vote coming up on whether or not to alter our state constitution so as to "ban civil unions, domestic partnerships, and gay marriage." That is, not only would they not allow homosexuals to marry, but they won't allow them (or anyone else) to obtain a civil union that would give them the same basic rights as married couples (i.e., to visit their partner in the hospital, claim their kids on tax forms, etc.)

You know, I'm not gay, and I don't have any gay friends, so usualy I don't take too much interest in this sort of thing, but this just makes me angry.
I always thought that the problem was that people got too hung up over the word "marriage," which seems to me to be a religious sacrament that the government can't really grant to anyone. I thought that the solution was obvious: make it clear that the government can only grant civil unions (to straights or gays) that recognized that two people were now recognized by society as domestic partners and would have certain legal rights; i.e., to file their tax forms jointly and claim any children of either partner, to be considered "relatives" for the purpose of hospital visits, life insurance, wills, etc. But now its obvious that the conservatives don't just want to "keep marriage sacred," they want to deny gay couples the rights that straight couples take for granted. I'm so angry I could spit.

Okay, rant over. So, what are the viewpoints of the folks here on homosexuality in general and gay marriage in particular?

**George** · 10-12-2006, 10:51 AM

For a long time I was on the fence about this issue. Honestly to this day, 2 men showing each other physical affection can still turn my stomach. But then I looked at it from the perspective of someone in love.

When you think about it, whether they are gay, lesbian straight or bi, they love each other. And they're going to be together regardless of whether they're married or not. When I look at my wife and how much she means to me and consider that gay and lesbian people feel the exact same way about their partners it's quite obvious to me that civil unions aren't about destroying our American culture and spreading the "gay way". It's about people wanting to spend the rest of their lives together and having the same feelings that any couple in love does.

The christian right take offense to it because they see it as an assault on the sanctity of marriage. I even tend to agree with them there slightly. But when it's called a civil union, which for the sake of everyone else is basically just for legal and benefits purposes, I don't see a problem. But the christian right still does. Why? Because there is an anti-gay submotive. They view gays as second class citizens just like minorities used to be back when minorities couldn't vote or legally do anything. They see this as a way to stand up against gays and lesbians and deny them the benefits of being legally joined. This is not just me spouting off rhetoric. I know this because I've overheard and participated in discussions where these exact motives were expressed.

Ronin · 10-12-2006, 11:42 AM

I know what you mean - any public display of affection turns my stomach (I'm afraid sex just isn't my thing - but I don't go around trying to spoil it for other people

). And lets face it, its hard for a straight person (especialy one who was raised to believe that homosexuality is either a sin or a mental illness) not to feel a little "weirded out" by homosexuals. There were two things that helped me begin to see it in a different light.

The first was a parody website that compared homosexuality with left handedness (I happen to be left handed). There were a lot of similarities: they both make up about 10 - 15% of the population, the genetics are far from straightforward (having left handed parents makes you more likely to be left handed, but identical twins can have different handednesses) and both were accused of being "deviants" out of mere perversness. That made me think: I've been left handed for as long as I can remember; I can't help it, its not a "lifestyle" that I "chose." I know what its like to feel as if the entire world was designed to make your life harder, and I know I would be upset if people started trying to outlaw writing with my left hand just because its different. So why would we do it to homosexuals?

The second was something that happened right here at my own beloved University of Virginia. One of the pediatric anesthesiologists that worked at the hospital was a lesbian who was in a monogmous relationsip with another lesbian. They had had two kids by artificial insemination (they took turns being inseminated with sperm from the same guy, so the kids are officialy "half siblings"). They considered themselves to be a family just like any other: two parents and their children, but legaly they were just two single mothers who happened to live together. The problem was that the peds anesthesiologist claimed both kids as dependents on her health insurance. When the insurance company found out that the second child was not biologicaly hers but her partner's, and that they weren't "related by marriage" (since they couldn't be married legaly), they sued her for insurance fraud. Between the lawsuit and the publicity she ended up being hounded out of the hospital.

What really made me angry about all this was the pure mean-spiritedness of it. I could understand if the insurance company told her, "look, ma'am, we understand that you consider this child yours, but we can only cover your own biological children or those that are related to you by a legal, gov't approved marriage." But instead they treated her like a criminal, as if she had deliberately commited insurance fraud in the same way as someone who burns down their own house for the insurance money. That's when I decided that, arguments about the "sanctity of marriage" aside, homosexuals who want to become a family ought to have some sort of legaly recognized status so that stuff like this doesn't happen.

DizzyDee · 10-12-2006, 05:49 PM

So many Christians say that marriage is a sacrament - but those same christians don't seem to have a problem with scientologists who marry and call it marriage. The fact is that a long time ago, government got involved in marriage by deciding who could and couldn't marry and therefore the government does have the right to define marriage. George and Ronin make important points - it's about love, it's about fairness, it's about protecting family rights.

Ronin, I'm glad that you are taking an interest in this area even though you are not gay or have gay friends. The problem minorities face in a demoncratic society is that it is hard to get majority support for their equal rights. As you pointed out gays and lesbians only total about 10 - 15% of the population - it the fight were only up to them, they would lose. They need straight people on their side in order to ensure they gain the same rights as others.

Ronin · 10-12-2006, 09:16 PM

Quote:

So many Christians say that marriage is a sacrament - but those same christians don't seem to have a problem with scientologists who marry and call it marriage.

Good point. I also think its rather hypocritical that even though the bible precludes divorce except in cases of adultery, the divorce rate is actually higher among evangelical christians than among the general population (interestingly, atheists and agnostics have the lowest divorce rate). I read that some baptist denomination is now doing "covanent marriages" based on these biblical principles, but apparently they're not too popular, even among bible-belt Christians. So mush for the "sanctity of marriage."

Quote:

Ronin, I'm glad that you are taking an interest in this area even though you are not gay or have gay friends. The problem minorities face in a demoncratic society is that it is hard to get majority support for their equal rights.

Thank you. But from my point of view, defending minority rights, even if you happen to be in the majority, is simply a matter of enlightened self interest. As Martin Luther King Jr. said: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

**SithLord** · 10-13-2006, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronin

Thank you. But from my point of view, defending minority rights, even if you happen to be in the majority, is simply a matter of enlightened self interest. As Martin Luther King Jr. said: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

That's refreshing to hear. It's funny but some of the most racist people in America can be found along the so called "bible belt".

As a minority myself one of the things that turned me off from religion was that a lot of the most racist scumbags I knew were in church with me every Sunday.

I think for a lot of them religion is just another way of separating themselves from another group. Hey look at us. We're pure white chrisitians. Anything less is beneath us. Elitism at it's finest.

DizzyDee · 10-13-2006, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Thank you. But from my point of view, defending minority rights, even if you happen to be in the majority, is simply a matter of enlightened self interest. As Martin Luther King Jr. said: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

I quite agree - but unfortunately it doesn't always work out that way. And just so you know demoncratic was a typo - I have no problems with democracy. Funny typo though

Ronin · 10-13-2006, 11:02 AM

Ha, that is funny.

I didn't even notice until you pointed it out. Perhaps it was a freudian slip?

Faydwyn · 10-14-2006, 12:14 AM

I have several thoughts about this issue.

-First of all, it really pisses me off. Who died and made them God (so to speak)?

-Let’s write discrimination into the constitution. Yeah that’s a good idea.

-Their arguments don’t even make sense. How exactly is it going to hurt heterosexual marriage? How will religious freedom be curtailed? How does homosexuality lead to or equate to pedophilia? Or my favorite one, it’s “unnatural.” Apparently they have never heard of the bonobos, a species of chimpanzees (which are considered our closest living relatives) who are completely bi-sexual. There are numerous other examples of homosexuality and bisexuality in the “wild.”

-I had a long talk with my sister (whose Christian) about this topic. Apparently, even the Biblical rationales are on shakey ground. For example, Levitical law, (which if I remember correctly, is the most blatant condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible) isn’t a good source to use. As my sister said:

“Do people also refrain from eating shellfish because it is a sin? If your going to say [Levitical law] is applicable you’re opening a world of hurt.” For example, during a women’s menstrual cycle she can’t leave the house. When you have a child you have to sacrifice birds. “No one is going to accept the entirety of Levitical law as applicable to people today. It’s like taking the Ten Commandments and saying best seven out of ten.”

-The solution, in my mind, is to either get rid of the term marriage entirely (yeah, like that’s going to happen any time soon) or for the state to only grant civil unions. Churches can decide to whom they want to grant marriages. If a church doesn’t want to have same-sex marriages, then fine; that’s their right. But the government should grant unions equally.

Ronin · 11-08-2006, 07:44 AM

Well, the votes are in, and the marriage amendment passed. Damn!

It wasn't even close - 58% to 42%. This is indeed a dark day for tolerance and social justice