My Big Damn Same-Sex Marriage Rant
Feb. 19th, 2005 01:10 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jamesqI'm all for same-sex marriage. I know that's not a shock to anyone who's reading this, but I thought I'd just put it out there just in case.
For me, this is a simple human rights issue. Two consenting adults who want to get married should be able to. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, I don't care if the neighbors are gay and/or married - "It neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg." Of course, that just means I'd be neutral on the subject, that I'd not be against it (which is not precisely the same as being for it). A columnist I read had this to say(and this is from memory, I don't have a cite): "The pile of happiness in this world is not so large that we can afford to not add to it". There are some GLBT's out there who want the same opportunity for happiness in a committed, legally sanctioned, relationship as the straights do now. Let them go for it.
I see the objections raised by the few who want to think for the many and it baffles me. Can't they see the glaringly obvious similarities between what they are saying now and what the anti-miscegenationists were saying in the last century? While we're on the subject, here are some of the usual objections and my responses to them.
1) Same-sex marriage is a danger to traditional marriage.
Yeah, just like sodomy is a danger to traditional penis-in-vagina sex. I keep hearing this from the Fred Henry's of the world, but they never explain how it's a danger. Mostly they just assert that homosexuality is immoral and expect people to buy it.
And while we're on the subject, what exactly is a traditional marriage? As The Bungle Lord likes to point out, for much of western history, arranged marriages were the norm. We managed to survive the transition from arranged marriages to romantic marriages just fine.
Let me spell it out to you: If the marriage or non-marriage of random strangers (straight or gay) somehow affects your feelings towards your spouse, then you've got bigger problems than bill C-38. I advise you look at strengthening your marriage by building up your own relationship, not by tearing down the relationships of others.
2) Marriage is all about procreation. Gay people can't do that.
Horseshit. Plenty of married couples are childfree or sterile. The widow one door east of Casa Cyr and the widower three doors west got married (to each other) in their sixties. Nobody is telling them they can't get married, even though the woman is well past menopause. Charles and Camilla are getting married - while there are objections, none of them are because Camilla is too old to have kids.
But this is a bogus argument anyway. To see why, try this thought experiment: If same-sex marriages were allowed, and we said that any GBLT couple who wanted children could adopt, would the Marriage=Procreation crowd react positively or negatively? I predict much wailing and gnashing of teeth from the usual suspects.
3a) If we allow GLBT couples to marry, then next thing you know, people will be allowed to marry their dog, or NAMBLA will want to allow marriage to children, etc. etc.
Ah yes, the "slippery slope" argument - if we give an inch, where will it end.
What part of "consenting adults" did you miss? Animals and children cannot, by their nature, give consent. Animals because they aren't sentient, children because they have yet to gain sufficient knowledge to be informed and sufficient independance for their choices to be deemed "free".
3b) If we allow GLBT couple to marry, then next thing you know, we'll have to allow polygamy.
My knee jerk reaction is to repeat what I said above, but really, would polygamy survive a court challenge? It is a tenant of established religions (and here I'm thinking Islam, not those nutty child molestors in Bountiful) so it could be argued that if we have freedom of religion and we allow same-sex marriages, then we should also allow polygamy.
I think my problem with it is that polygamy treats people like property rather than partners. More to the point it considers women to be the property of the man. A rich man can have more than one wife, in exactly the same way that he can have more than one car.
Oh, an ideal polygamist marriage would mean that all of the partners want to be part of the whole, but that's not how it really works is it. A wants to be with B as well as C, but that doesn't necessarily mean that B and C want to be with each other. I think if we decide to outlaw polygamy this is the way you have to go: that consent to marry one person does not mean that you consent to marry that person's partners. Even if you do consent to the current crop of wives, It certainly doesn't imply consent of future wives without knowing who they might be. Put this way I think we could argue against polygamy successfully.
Alternatively, we could have a situation like in Enterprise (and here I'm thinking of the ship's alien doctor) where people can have multiple marriages, but they do not transfer to the other person's marriage partners. This is polyamory with an additional layer of commitment, and would probably work about as well. That is to say, I doubt it would ever be anything other than a small minority of marriages - humans are not Denobulans after all. I have personal objections to polyamory (owing to the fact that I think a lot of the time one of the people in the primary relationship is being coerced into something they'd rather not have), but I wouldn't try to stop adults from engaging in it if they so desired. Basically, the simple fact that I don't like it is insufficient for me to mount an opposition to it.
I talked about some of my polygamy objections to Jason. Namely that most of the woman in these sorts of marriages would be pressured into it by their religion. He responded by pointing out that singular marriages might also be coerced, sometimes by the couple's religion and we don't stop them. It's not up to the state to decide which marriages are valid and which are invalid. The individuals involved need to decide for themselves. If they decide wrong, they can still divorce.
This is exactly how I think about same-sex marriage. I'm a little pissed off at myself that I needed to have it spelled out to me for polygamy as well.
Of course, I still think they should shut down the Bountiful colony. I think the BC attorney general could make a compelling case that the Winston Blackmore's of this world are not engaging in polygamy - they're actually part of a huge, well organized, child prostitution ring.
Grog has talked about same-sex marriage a lot on his blog, mostly from a legal point of view. I think this is OK (I like a good legalese debate from time to time myself) but ultimately my stance on same-sex marriages is not based on legalities. If the Charter of Rights did not exist, I would still be for it (as I assume Grog would be), for the reasons I state in the first couple of paragraphs of this entry.
Another, knee-jerk, part of me wants to support same-sex marriage precisely because the people who are against it are such assholes. And when I say assholes, I mean the local conservative party and the religious right (especially the groups in the states that are lobbying our politicians. Hey, you got all uppity when we voiced an opinion about your recent election, that means you keep your noses out of ours. Just because you want to eliminate human rights across the board, doesn't mean we have to do it too.)
For example, Jason Kenney is being a 'tard again - he was quoted as saying that the marriage laws are not discriminatory because gays can still marry members of the opposite sex. Why they would want to I don't know.
This is sophistry at it's finest. It's like the old saw that laws against vagrancy aren't discriminatory against the poor because rich people aren't allowed to sleep under bridges either. I doubt Kenney misunderstands this - he seems a sharp enough fellow (and is considered something of an intellectual amongst his peers). However, he's always struck me as someone who moved from model parliament in high school to parliament in real life, without realizing that the stakes matter now. To him it's all about winning the debate, not doing what's right. I think it's high time he grew up.
I won't even get into what guys like Myron Thompson are saying. That's a little like trying to reason with Boss Hogg.
All is not lost though - Jim Prentice is actually going against the party and doing the right thing (and is taking a huge amount of flack for his principles). So is Belinda Stronach - I'm starting to like this woman, and not just because she's rich and good-looking.
Meh, it wouldn't work anyway. Canada may be ready for same-sex marriage, but it's not ready for a marriage between a leftist blog writer and a conservative business leader. But oh, what a sit-com we'd make.
For me, this is a simple human rights issue. Two consenting adults who want to get married should be able to. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, I don't care if the neighbors are gay and/or married - "It neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg." Of course, that just means I'd be neutral on the subject, that I'd not be against it (which is not precisely the same as being for it). A columnist I read had this to say(and this is from memory, I don't have a cite): "The pile of happiness in this world is not so large that we can afford to not add to it". There are some GLBT's out there who want the same opportunity for happiness in a committed, legally sanctioned, relationship as the straights do now. Let them go for it.
I see the objections raised by the few who want to think for the many and it baffles me. Can't they see the glaringly obvious similarities between what they are saying now and what the anti-miscegenationists were saying in the last century? While we're on the subject, here are some of the usual objections and my responses to them.
1) Same-sex marriage is a danger to traditional marriage.
Yeah, just like sodomy is a danger to traditional penis-in-vagina sex. I keep hearing this from the Fred Henry's of the world, but they never explain how it's a danger. Mostly they just assert that homosexuality is immoral and expect people to buy it.
And while we're on the subject, what exactly is a traditional marriage? As The Bungle Lord likes to point out, for much of western history, arranged marriages were the norm. We managed to survive the transition from arranged marriages to romantic marriages just fine.
Let me spell it out to you: If the marriage or non-marriage of random strangers (straight or gay) somehow affects your feelings towards your spouse, then you've got bigger problems than bill C-38. I advise you look at strengthening your marriage by building up your own relationship, not by tearing down the relationships of others.
2) Marriage is all about procreation. Gay people can't do that.
Horseshit. Plenty of married couples are childfree or sterile. The widow one door east of Casa Cyr and the widower three doors west got married (to each other) in their sixties. Nobody is telling them they can't get married, even though the woman is well past menopause. Charles and Camilla are getting married - while there are objections, none of them are because Camilla is too old to have kids.
But this is a bogus argument anyway. To see why, try this thought experiment: If same-sex marriages were allowed, and we said that any GBLT couple who wanted children could adopt, would the Marriage=Procreation crowd react positively or negatively? I predict much wailing and gnashing of teeth from the usual suspects.
3a) If we allow GLBT couples to marry, then next thing you know, people will be allowed to marry their dog, or NAMBLA will want to allow marriage to children, etc. etc.
Ah yes, the "slippery slope" argument - if we give an inch, where will it end.
What part of "consenting adults" did you miss? Animals and children cannot, by their nature, give consent. Animals because they aren't sentient, children because they have yet to gain sufficient knowledge to be informed and sufficient independance for their choices to be deemed "free".
3b) If we allow GLBT couple to marry, then next thing you know, we'll have to allow polygamy.
My knee jerk reaction is to repeat what I said above, but really, would polygamy survive a court challenge? It is a tenant of established religions (and here I'm thinking Islam, not those nutty child molestors in Bountiful) so it could be argued that if we have freedom of religion and we allow same-sex marriages, then we should also allow polygamy.
I think my problem with it is that polygamy treats people like property rather than partners. More to the point it considers women to be the property of the man. A rich man can have more than one wife, in exactly the same way that he can have more than one car.
Oh, an ideal polygamist marriage would mean that all of the partners want to be part of the whole, but that's not how it really works is it. A wants to be with B as well as C, but that doesn't necessarily mean that B and C want to be with each other. I think if we decide to outlaw polygamy this is the way you have to go: that consent to marry one person does not mean that you consent to marry that person's partners. Even if you do consent to the current crop of wives, It certainly doesn't imply consent of future wives without knowing who they might be. Put this way I think we could argue against polygamy successfully.
Alternatively, we could have a situation like in Enterprise (and here I'm thinking of the ship's alien doctor) where people can have multiple marriages, but they do not transfer to the other person's marriage partners. This is polyamory with an additional layer of commitment, and would probably work about as well. That is to say, I doubt it would ever be anything other than a small minority of marriages - humans are not Denobulans after all. I have personal objections to polyamory (owing to the fact that I think a lot of the time one of the people in the primary relationship is being coerced into something they'd rather not have), but I wouldn't try to stop adults from engaging in it if they so desired. Basically, the simple fact that I don't like it is insufficient for me to mount an opposition to it.
I talked about some of my polygamy objections to Jason. Namely that most of the woman in these sorts of marriages would be pressured into it by their religion. He responded by pointing out that singular marriages might also be coerced, sometimes by the couple's religion and we don't stop them. It's not up to the state to decide which marriages are valid and which are invalid. The individuals involved need to decide for themselves. If they decide wrong, they can still divorce.
This is exactly how I think about same-sex marriage. I'm a little pissed off at myself that I needed to have it spelled out to me for polygamy as well.
Of course, I still think they should shut down the Bountiful colony. I think the BC attorney general could make a compelling case that the Winston Blackmore's of this world are not engaging in polygamy - they're actually part of a huge, well organized, child prostitution ring.
Grog has talked about same-sex marriage a lot on his blog, mostly from a legal point of view. I think this is OK (I like a good legalese debate from time to time myself) but ultimately my stance on same-sex marriages is not based on legalities. If the Charter of Rights did not exist, I would still be for it (as I assume Grog would be), for the reasons I state in the first couple of paragraphs of this entry.
Another, knee-jerk, part of me wants to support same-sex marriage precisely because the people who are against it are such assholes. And when I say assholes, I mean the local conservative party and the religious right (especially the groups in the states that are lobbying our politicians. Hey, you got all uppity when we voiced an opinion about your recent election, that means you keep your noses out of ours. Just because you want to eliminate human rights across the board, doesn't mean we have to do it too.)
For example, Jason Kenney is being a 'tard again - he was quoted as saying that the marriage laws are not discriminatory because gays can still marry members of the opposite sex. Why they would want to I don't know.
This is sophistry at it's finest. It's like the old saw that laws against vagrancy aren't discriminatory against the poor because rich people aren't allowed to sleep under bridges either. I doubt Kenney misunderstands this - he seems a sharp enough fellow (and is considered something of an intellectual amongst his peers). However, he's always struck me as someone who moved from model parliament in high school to parliament in real life, without realizing that the stakes matter now. To him it's all about winning the debate, not doing what's right. I think it's high time he grew up.
I won't even get into what guys like Myron Thompson are saying. That's a little like trying to reason with Boss Hogg.
All is not lost though - Jim Prentice is actually going against the party and doing the right thing (and is taking a huge amount of flack for his principles). So is Belinda Stronach - I'm starting to like this woman, and not just because she's rich and good-looking.
Meh, it wouldn't work anyway. Canada may be ready for same-sex marriage, but it's not ready for a marriage between a leftist blog writer and a conservative business leader. But oh, what a sit-com we'd make.
A couple of points
Date: 2005-02-19 07:16 pm (UTC)a) To get away from the emotionalism of the other arguments
b) Because that's a line of reasoning that readers like my parents will understand. (Believe it or not, they've actually changed their position...)
c) I take a perverse sense of pleasure in dismantling completely irrational arguments with a bit of basic logic.
2) GLBT adoption has been happening for years. The conservative elements of society don't like it, but it has been going on.
3) My support for same gender marriage goes beyond the legal issues - as far as I'm concerned, if two people love each other, and want to get married - great! (and frankly, do I care about their respective genders? - no)
4) As much as the Christian Reich likes to associate same-gender marriage and polygamy, they are unrelated topics, that require individual treatment.
- Grog
http://www.crystalgaze2.blogspot.com/