The Gay Marriage FAQ

November 10, 2006 at 1:10 am 10 comments

Was reading this post and was surprised by the arguments against gay marriage–so many misconceptions. Attempt to clarify follows after the link.

“Gay marriage should be made illegal because:”

1. The Bible says it’s a sin.

Go ahead, believe that. I’m not going to stop you. But in a country with freedom of religion, you’d better not try to legislate your beliefs, otherwise other religions should have the right to legislate theirs. Muslims could, if they chose, push through a law requiring women to wear head scarves. Buddhists could have a law making eating meat illegal. Careful what you wish for. Religion can be a legitimate starting point for a legal opinion, but it can’t be the ONLY starting point.

2. Gays spread AIDS!

AIDS is a disease that is spread by having unprotected sex/sharing needles, not by being gay. Straight people have unprotected sex AND anal sex, too–often both, because they figure there’s no point in using a condom because there’s no fear of pregnancy. There are even gay men who do not have anal sex, and I’m not talking about those who have been supposedly “converted” to straightness. Oh, and lesbians, who are also gay, have the lowest incidence of STDs/AIDS of any demographic. By contrast, the group in Eastern Europe with the fastest rising AIDS rates are straight men who have unprotected sex with prostitutes (and the prostitutes themselves). If this surprises you, you are a fool who will soon get an STD if you haven’t already.

And if you’re seriously worried about gay men running around having sex with multiple partners, what better way to prevent this than to allow them to settle down and marry?

3. It’s just not natural. Gays can’t procreate, why should the state give them rights?

a) It’s certainly natural in the animal world.

b) The rights that are being asked for (inheritance, hospital visitation, shared benefits) actually save the state money because they make it easier for the two people concerned to care for each other and stay financially and emotionally afloat, share resources and responsibilities, etc.

c) Solving infertility by complicated IVF treatments, ie test tube babies, is certainly not nature’s way of doing things, yet no one wants to legislate against that. Why not protest plastic surgery for changing things from the way God intended?

d) Lesbians can and do procreate, even (shock and horror!) right now, this minute. You can’t legislate this away. Yes it’s with donated sperm, but if a straight couple uses donated sperm, the resulting child is still considered their kid, no question. Nobody accuses them of being “unnatural”.

4. They can do what they want, have their own “marriages”, just not legally sanctioned ones.

That’s missing the point entirely. Legally sanctioned marriages (call them unions, whatever, but make them legally equal) come with certain rights and responsibilities: hospital visitation, inheritance, and so on. The church part is irrelevant, to me at least. Let each religious branch decide what they want to allow in their own places of worship. But if my partner is in the hospital alone after a car wreck, you’d better let me get to go in and see her, otherwise you’re a heartless bastard. (Bonus for Christians: God is love, remember?)

5. It’s just wrong.

How are gay marriages affecting your life personally? Why is it such a big deal to you(those of you out protesting) that you bother fighting against it? Is your marriage worse for the wear? Has crime increased? Has Massachusetts plunged into economic ruin? If it’s just “wrong”, please explain why your unreasoned, offhand opinion should affect the lives of real existing couples who care enough about each other to want to take care of each other FOREVER, even when they’re old and ailing, and for reason (1.) above, don’t give me a religion-based answer.

Entry filed under: Opinions, Religion, Save the world.

UpTrucks arrived! Linguistic contexts

10 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Jeff  |  November 10, 2006 at 1:16 am

    On #3, gay men can procreate too. We may have to “borrow” somebody else’s womb for nine or so months, but we can and do. My partner and I have two wonderful children, 5 and 7 from a wonderful surrogate who was kind enough to help us in this way.

    Wanting children is embedded in us biologically. Some of us don’t, because of what we’ve been through, want children– and that’s fine. But for those of us who do, preventing same-sex marriage isn’t going to stop us. And we do a fine job of raising those kids, if I do say so myself. Wanting kids and having to be so intentional about having them is much different than having them “accidentally!”

  • 2. timethief  |  November 10, 2006 at 4:24 am

    I am so very tired of those mean spirited people who make up all kinds of excuses to deny two other people what they already have if they want to spend the rest of their lives together – love and commitment.
    Civil marriage is simply a contractual means of establishing legal rights. The right to become one another’s beneficiaries and inheritors of estates and of course the rights of family (next of kin) if one becomes ill or incompetent.
    It’s a true piss-off that there are folks out there who believe governments ought to be are preoccupied with interfering in the private contractual affairs of their citizens.
    Two people who love one another and who are committed to remain in relationship raising together children are a family. There will be love and bonding. There will be sex and children. Creating two classes of citizen “pairs” one allowed to contract to marry and another that isn’t is wrongheaded and contains no benefits to society.
    Governments and churches have no legitimate place in the bedrooms of their citizens and certainly none in their personal family and financial affairs. Indeed the desire to meddle in these affairs is most perverse and extremely un-natural.

  • 3. veltis  |  November 10, 2006 at 7:15 am

    @ timethief: Oh yeah.

    @ Jeff: You’re right, of course on all counts(congratulations and lucky you, too!)–I left out gay men in my example because people have argued that that is a “preventable” way of procreating, ie make surrogacy illegal and gay men having babies won’t be a problem anymore–or at least that surrogates are harder to find than sperm. (Though I haven’t looked into this–how easily did you find yours?)

    What I find interesting about this debate is that “gay” is almost always used to describe gay men, yet they ignore lesbians entirely, who cannot be denied by the same arguments. Certainly if they want to be all logical about it, ignoring half of the gay population is not the way to go.

    The children aspect opens up a whole new side of the debate–again, interestingly, the opposition paints horror scenarios of the future where all kids will be gay and the human race dies out in a flurry of pansy men and hyper-masculine women–sometimes certain portions of the Christian right even paint gayness as such a huge fantastic temptation that everyone would be gay if the church didn’t stop it…almost as though they’re jealous..?

    Or they claim these children will be molested daily.

    What they don’t get is that GAY PEOPLE HAVE BEEN HAVING CHILDREN SINCE THE DAWN OF TIME. And nothing much is different; straight parents keep having the occasional gay child, and if you look at the records of child molestation, most cases involve straight men. Guess that makes them unfit to have children or get married…

  • 4. Jeff  |  November 10, 2006 at 1:32 pm

    We used an agency to find our surrogate.

    Of course the other side likes to think that gay parents means gay children, but as you point out there is no evidence to support the conclusion that incidence of homosexuality in gay-parented households is any higher than in that of straight-parented households.

    In fact, I have seen documentaries showing that gay-parented households have a much harder time coming to terms with the coming out of a child because they know just how difficult a journey the child faces.

    And the pedophila angle has been refuted time and time again, but for whatever reason it keeps coming up. Those on the other side just fear us too much– if they didn’t have something to fear they wouldn’t have a reason to spurn us.

    Truth will eventually prevail…

  • 5. veltis  |  November 13, 2006 at 11:24 am

    …we can only hope. At least the Dems are in power now…I just have a hard time understanding how some people think that preventing gay people from getting married is worth more attention and energy than, say, global warming, the poor and homeless, the deficit, corruption in congress, the war in Iraq, the housing economy, la la la…

  • 6. Lloyd Budd  |  November 16, 2006 at 8:42 pm

    Having children seems like a separate issue to me than marriage, and is the “trickier” question, but not that different from any potential parents considering children.

    As long as a person has caring parents, I think they have a good chance of a healthy life. Strong masculin and feminine role models is also very desirable.

  • 7. timethief  |  January 11, 2007 at 7:50 pm

    IMO gay couples having children is not a separate issue from gay marriage. It’s natural for young couples to want to have and raise children and I’ve already expressed that I think gay marriages are as natural as hetero marriages are.

    No couple who loved their children would deliberately deprive them of compassionate masculine or strong feminine role models. Please note my deliberate reversal of the adjectives. *lol*

  • 8. Brianna  |  February 8, 2007 at 2:19 pm

    Hey im doig a project on gay marriage and how its not right. But i think that ur page was very helping but u should add some moe info. It is just not cool that gays have kids it is not right. In the bible it says no it is a sin. Nice going and breaking a sin.

  • 9. veltis  |  February 10, 2007 at 7:04 am

    Brianna, please have another look at my post, in particular part #1. You may believe that gay marriage is wrong, but making a law about it based on your religious beliefs is, in my view, unfair. You can believe whatever you like and live your life according to those beliefs, but that doesn’t give you the right to impose those beliefs on others–otherwise others of other religions should also have the right to impose their beliefs on you.

    Also the Bible says nothing at all about gay people having children. Seriously. And Jesus does not mention gays either. The mentions of gay people are limited to the Old Testament, which is full of a lot of other rules ignored by conservative Christians (like do not eat shellfish) and Paul in the New Testament, who was just giving his personal opinion/interpretation. So says my brother, who is studying to be a priest.

  • 10. Michelle  |  December 17, 2007 at 4:51 pm

    This whole ‘Christian order’ doesn’t make sense! People should be able to love whoever they want to. I am also writing an essay on gay marrage and children raised in gay house holds. Love is a natural thing, and I do not believe that love has a preference of a person’s sex. I live close to a family of three girls with two moms, and it is beautiful seeing how involved their moms are in their lives. They walk them to school every morning, and play outside with them. I’ve never thought that this was weird, other than the fact that they are so much more functional than my hetero-sexual, now separated family. Stay strong. Hopefully someday these controlling people will love, and let love.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed

Today is a good day to play

A collection of potential future projects, to dig deeper into when I find the time. links

%d bloggers like this: