Gay Marriage - The War for Equality

by Inquisitor 108 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • BizzyBee
    BizzyBee
    I am opposed to "gay" marriage and yet, curiously, I'm not homophobic.

    Perhaps not so curious at all. They are really two separate concepts, which have clearly become lost in this discussion.

    I feel the same, except to say that while I have no gripe with homosexuals practicing their preferences, I am not totally sure that gay marriage is a good thing for society. As it stands now, homosexuals have the freedom to freely express their sexuality without interference. So that is not the issue. I am not clear on the ramifications to the legal system. And just because it would be nice for everyone to be treated equally, the fact is we are not equal - and I acknowledge that being treated equally and being equal are two separate concepts, also.

    The fact is, we do not bring equal skills, needs or contributions to the table. For everyone who brings more needs than contributions, someone else has to pick up the slack. This isn't the Magic Kingdom. And that is going to become even more evident in the near term as our social/financial systems become burdened like we've never known before in this country. Frivolous - yes, frivolous - indulgent distractions are soon to be luxuries we cannot afford. We've existed for centuries without gay marriage. We can survive another few years. Meantime, we have real issues to deal with that really are life and death. If two people are truly committed - they can manage to make it work. Yes, they can. It is done all the time.

  • cognizant dissident
    cognizant dissident

    I feel the same, except to say that while I have no gripe with homosexuals practicing their preferences, I am not totally sure that gay marriage is a good thing for society.

    Can heterosexual marriage be shown to be a good thing for society? How so? Should homosexual marriage have to shoulder a burden of proving itself good for society when heterosexual marriage doesn't?

    As it stands now, homosexuals have the freedom to freely express their sexuality without interference.

    If they are prevented from legally marrying are they truly being allowed to express their sexuality without interference? Especially if the expression of their sexuality includes the legal commitment of marriage. It could be argued that marriage is not an expression of sexuality at all, but of cultural tradition. If so, the same would hold true for heterosexual marriages.

    So that is not the issue. I am not clear on the ramifications to the legal system. And just because it would be nice for everyone to be treated equally, the fact is we are not equal - and I acknowledge that being treated equally and being equal are two separate concepts, also.

    In what ways are gay marriages not equal to heterosexual marriages?

    The fact is, we do not bring equal skills, needs or contributions to the table. For everyone who brings more needs than contributions, someone else has to pick up the slack.

    What skills do heterosexuals bring to the marriage table that homosexuals don't. If none, then how is this statement releveant to the topic. Can you name one example of how society will have to pick up the slack in contributions due to gay marriages?

    This isn't the Magic Kingdom.

    Who suggested that it was and how is this comment even relevant to the topic?

    And that is going to become even more evident in the near term as our social/financial systems become burdened like we've never known before in this country.

    How will gay marriage contribute to social/financial burdens? If you can provide an example of how they will, do heterosexual marriages also contribute to this burden to society? If yes, then why should society shoulder the burden for heterosexual marriage and not homosexual marriage? (Especially since we are in such dire straights as never before!)

    Frivolous - yes, frivolous - indulgent distractions are soon to be luxuries we cannot afford.

    Can you explain by what criteria, homosexual marriage is "frivolous" and heterosexual marriage is not?

    We've existed for centuries without gay marriage. We can survive another few years. Meantime, we have real issues to deal with that really are life and death. If two people are truly committed - they can manage to make it work. Yes, they can. It is done all the time.

    This is very true. Society could also survive quite well without legalized heterosexual marriage and any financial/social advantages it may bring. It is done all the time, by the millions of couples shacking up and the children they are raising.

    Cog

  • BizzyBee
    BizzyBee

    Cog,

    I am talking about the notion of equality being engineered for everyone, not just gay marriage. This country makes great efforts to create a level playing field for all - not just equal treatment, but equal outcome. These artificial constructs in many instances become absurd.

    So, with the current debate, we have a 'war' between two great principles: Equality for everyone and rule by the people. The people of California voted against same-sex marriage in 2000. How to we compromise so that everyone goes home happy? Simply ignore the will of the people because we don't like it? Ultimately there has to be a decision as to whether marriage is a religious institution or a government sanction. As a legal, government-upheld sanction, how do you just kick out the will of the voters? Now, make it a strictly religious ceremony - which is already done all the time - but that is not enough, is it?

    I am only arguing from a practical POV - the morality is totally irrelevant to me because it is not enforceable. In practical appliocation, same-sex marriage is fraught with dilemmas.

  • VoidEater
    VoidEater

    Carolos: in this case, societal survivablity.

    I fail to see how allowing gay people to marry impacts survivability. The lack of gay marriage makes no one straight, the availability of gay marriage makes no one gay.

    Societies flourish when diversity is present. Societies are happy when they celebrate their members.

    Carlos: the "health of a society" as determined by the society vs. the "individual rights" claimed by individuals or groups of individuals.

    Society is made up of its members. Healthy members results in healthy society. Society shows us that disenfranchising its members leads to ill health.

    Carlos: Marriage and family are institutions that, by and large, have thrived for thousands of years in their traditional forms.

    A careful look at hsitory reveals that this is not exclusive. A cursory glance at the trend of the planet reveals a trend towards inclusion.

    Carlos: When a society deviates far enough from those traditions, when marriage and family are no longer "solid," the society deteriorates.

    As even some conservatives point out, including gays in marriage actually makes marriage more solid. With straight marriages having about a 50% divorce rate, having more support for the institution may be what will save it. Include more families as building blocks, and society is strengthened.

    Carlos: Allow society to determine what is best for society.

    Gays seeking to marry ARE a part of society. We are seeing society advance. As it has in other countries already.

  • VoidEater
    VoidEater

    Cog did a better job, but here's my 2 cents, too...

    Bizzy: As it stands now, homosexuals have the freedom to freely express their sexuality without interference. So that is not the issue.

    Correct. The issue is whether gay people will be extended the dignity of inclusion in society's forms, whether we will be allowed to sit at the table.

    This can be viewed as an extension of the Stonewall riots. Will gays be allowed to congregate in a bar? Will they be denied the same social standing that straight people take for granted?

    Bizzy: I am not clear on the ramifications to the legal system.

    Some of the impacts are that it can be impossible for me to visit my sick or injured partner in the hospital, and can my partner inherit my property, without having to go through special effort and expense to document our relationship - and then be prepared to prove that relatinoship by carrying around documentation everywhere I go.

    Even with state-sanctioned marriage in some cases, my marriage will still not be recognized automatically in other states. That's yet another battle. My straight peers can get married in any state of the union and be legally married in every other state they choose to visit or move to. Not so for us gays.

    A friend of mine lost his partner of decades. With no legal marriage, civil union, or domestic partnership available, all his interest in his dead partner's property and effects were removed by the dead partner's family.

    Being second-class citizens is not healthy for the individual nor for society.

    Bizzy: The fact is, we do not bring equal skills, needs or contributions to the table.

    Riiiiight...gay people contribute so little to society...we don't pay our taxes, our insurance premiums, babysit our relatives, work as nannies, make great music, serve as politicians...we are such drains! Heck, we might want FREE marriage certificates, FREE honeymoons, FREE minister services...does anyone have a clue how much a gay wedding industry would generate in taxes and tourism?

    Bizzy: For everyone who brings more needs than contributions, someone else has to pick up the slack.

    As a gay man with no desire for children, I gladly support schools with my taxes, welfare for single mothers with infants, contribute to the United Way, and...wait, I guess I'm picking up the slack for my straight neighbors!

    Bizzy: We've existed for centuries without gay marriage. We can survive another few years.

    Then let's fix some errors of the past - certainly Black Americans won't mind giving up the right to vote (what an expense maintaining those voters lists are, and processing all those ballots!), and let's stop granting interracial marriage licenses (hey, it's just for a few years, it doesn't impact all that many people anyway, they can wait).

    Slavery - now there's a big money maker! Biggest mistake this country ever made, getting rid of slavery - what that did to the cost of goods when we started to pay workers rather than own slaves! They can make things work, it's done all the time.

    Gotta love traditional values.

    Bizzy: Equality for everyone and rule by the people.

    Like the civil war...and the civil rights movement...we were so wrong to push those non-traditional values on the Confederate states.

    Bizzy: Simply ignore the will of the people because we don't like it?

    Like the civil war...and the civil rights movement...oh, already said that.

    Bizzy: Ultimately there has to be a decision as to whether marriage is a religious institution or a government sanction.

    Why? There has "always" been a distinction between a church wedding and a civil wedding. I won't demand a wedding in your church, don't deny me eqaul standing under the law.

    Bizzy: Now, make it a strictly religious ceremony - which is already done all the time - but that is not enough, is it?

    Of course that's enough. Make it a strictly religious ceremony, you go to your church, I'll go to mine.

    But that's not the case.

    I don't want your church to marry me. I just want the state to afford equal legal standing, which happens to also be supportive if societal health.

    Bizzy: In practical appliocation, same-sex marriage is fraught with dilemmas.

    As any marriage is.

  • BizzyBee
    BizzyBee

    VE,

    My answer to Cog applies to your response to my comments as well. What you describe - a loving partnership denied - is of course sad. But I am talking about equality in a larger sense, not gays specifically.

    The 'dilemma' I refer to is the process of legalizing gay marriage, not the marriage itself, (which I agree faces the same hurdles as hetero marriage.) Just for one example, the term at the heart of the controversy - equality - is such a vague word:

    In its prescriptive usage, ‘equality’ is a loaded and ‘highly contested’ concept. On account of its normally positive connotation, it has a rhetorical power rendering it suitable as a political slogan (Westen 1990). At least since the French Revolution, equality has served as one of the leading ideals of the body politic; in this respect, it is at present probably the most controversial of the great social ideals. There is controversy concerning the precise notion of equality, the relation of justice and equality (the principles of equality), the material requirements and measure of the ideal of equality (equality of what?), the extension of equality (equality among whom?), and its status within a comprehensive (liberal) theory of justice (the value of equality). http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equality/

    This 'war' has just begun. The backlash could very well jeopardize strides already made by proponents of same-sex unions. (Editorials in USA TODAY and Washington Post)

  • cognizant dissident
    cognizant dissident

    I'm not quite sure what your argument is here Bizzy. Equality is difficult to define, so let's just forget the whole thing? It may be difficult to define in words but I still know it when I see it! I'm sure if the civil rights movement lawyers and the equal rights amendment lawyers were able to draft legislation for blacks and women they will be able to cough up something for homosexuals.

    "You can sit in any damn seat on the bus you want to!".

    "I do the exact same job as that guy over there, now pay me the same wage dammit!"

    "I love this man and want to boink him until I die, share all my finances and worthless junk I've collected over the years, now give me the same damn tax break as every one else in the country gets!"

    There, what was so difficult about that? It's only difficult if you want it to be difficult.

    Cog

  • VoidEater
    VoidEater

    The 'dilemma' I refer to is the process of legalizing gay marriage, not the marriage itself

    But, my dear Bizzy, we've already been through this with interracial marriage (perhaps you are not old enough to have lived through these self-same arguments and the self-same agony of changing State consistutions to allow interracial marriage?) or, at an even greater level, civil rights for Black Americans?

    I am not saying these analogies are "equal" - but they are similar: the same arguments against, the same predictions of doom, the same backlash. Or in some cases the lack of backlash. Can you imagine the sufferage movement coming to a halt because of the process of allowing women to vote? The backlash?

    Just because something is difficult doesn't mean you don't do it.

  • BizzyBee
    BizzyBee

    Cog,

    I'm sure when you refer to "me" you are really referring to society at large - ? Because BizzyBee does not make the rules by herself, she just reminds ya'll what the rules are currently. That's why you're not quite sure what my 'argument' is - I don't have one. I am an observer - a common-tater, if you will, not a dick-tater.

    But when somebody says that this isn't that "difficult" or that it's "simple" - I just have to point out that society has been chasing around this particular mulberry bush for quite some time without a resolution because it is that "difficult." Its called the will the of people (note: not the will of BizzyBee), which sometimes this country pays attention to, but not always.

  • VoidEater
    VoidEater

    I just have to point out that society has been chasing around this particular mulberry bush for quite some time without a resolution because it is that "difficult."

    That's kinda my point - we are in a process. It wasn't until 1967 that the Supreme Court ruled interracial marriage the law of the land.

    We seem to have survived.

    Chasing around for quite some time? The legal fight for gay marriage has barely begun.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit