search
top

Gay Cooties

I don’t really get the objections to it either.  The best arguments seem to be preserving a tradition that’s nearly as old as man.  Seems to be that for most of man’s history we’ve also fed other human beings into live volcanos to appease some god or another, and held others as slaves.  Tradition can be a poor reason to keep doing something.

16 Responses to “Gay Cooties”

  1. Nomen Nescio says:

    except that, as other folks are fond of noting, marriage is a “tradition” that changes all the time.

    used to be a married woman could not refuse her husband sex. we changed that tradition, and thank goodness. used to be you could not marry somebody of a different color skin than yours. Richard and Mildred Loving changed that as recently as 1967. (Mildred passed away just recently, by the way; Richard died in a car accident in the 1970s.) used to be you could have more than one wife, and treat them all as property. that got changed several centuries back, which goes to show that this “tradition” has always been malleable to change. i could go on listing the changes we’ve made to it, but there’d be no point.

  2. Dean J says:

    We’ve had gays for just as long as we’ve had mankind, but the fundamentalists refuse to admit that gay isn’t a fad or much of a choice.

    Until they respect the people, it’s hard for them to respect other people’s different choices.

  3. Ian Argent says:

    thanks for the link. Thought was provoked by a Volohk thread where someone was insisting that the civil marriage laws were about the opportunity to reproduce. They’re not; civil marriage is all about property and power of attorney.

  4. gattsuru says:

    And if you went back in time and told those people dropping folk into a volcano should be banned, you’d be first in line for sacrificial victims. That, for starters, seems like a very good reason to follow tradition.

    It’s a boatload of political capital, for what amounts to a pittance. A marriage license is just paper. You can already have a gay marriage ceremony, you can make pretty much any enforcible legal contact regardless of gender, and the rest of it is just statute, and not particularly favorable statute at that. There’s so many cheaper ways to get the tangible results it’s not even funny, and no assurances that getting gay marriage will actually keep the tangible results.

    That’s ignoring the freedom of speech and freedom of religion aspects. Yes, you, I, and the sane 95% of the various GLT groups would never try to force a church to perform a given marriage ceremony, or an individual to speak a given way about a gay marriage. Congratulations. You know the lunatics are out there, and cases like Elaine Huguenins are not going to fall in favor of free speech.

  5. Ian Argent says:

    I would care a good deal less if the contract law aspects were all it was. But I know people who have been denied hosptial visitation rights because they are not next of kin. How about the common-law right to not testify against your spouse? As for the religious aspect – the Catholic Church won’t marry the hetero couple of my exampple; why in the world should they be forced to marry the same sex couple?

  6. Mike says:

    It’s not a tradition, it’s an institution. I don’t care if a couple of guys want to # each other up the rear ends, but they can’t be married. That’s like calling the butt of the gun the muzzle; you’re talking about a standard definition as old as our language, and trying to make it something it’s not is disingenious at the very least.

    That being said, you don’t hear blacks wanting to be called “white” because otherwise they won’t quite be “equal,” yet. Feminists don’t want women to be called men. Yet, that’s what these “gay marriage” advocates are doing – asking to be called “not gay” merely for the purpose of being “equal.” What does this say about our courts? If judges can’t get “gay” and “not gay” right, how do we expect them to get “shall not be infringed” right? I think too many liberals and libertarians tend to avoid the real questions in these cases in order to appear to be “liberty minded.”

  7. chris says:

    gays already have the SAME EXACT RIGHTS I HAVE…. they can legally marry a member of the opposite sex…

    they are asking for special consideration based on a choice in their lifestyle…

    i have yet to see credible studies that show that homosexuality is genetic or hereditary (which would be interesting since most gays dont breed)… so by definition it is a choice…

    so far the only other choice that we as a society protect against discrimination is religion… im just not sure why we need to add another choice to the list…

  8. Sebastian says:

    I do think there’s no equal protection issue with gay marriage, which is why I oppose the courts mandating it on that basis. However, I don’t see any reason for the legislature to limit the institution to hetero couples only. I’m not sure whether it’s genetic or not, and you’re right, there’s no good scientific basis for presuming either way. But for the gay folks I know, it wasn’t really a choice any more than being heterosexual was a choice for us.

  9. Nomen Nescio says:

    chris – Loving v. Virginia, 1967. the exact same arguments you’re making now were made back then, against interracial marriage. and Sebastian, seconded; i never chose to be straight either, so i have no reason to assume anybody ever chooses to be gay. (what would be the advantages, or the appeal, in making a choice like that?)

  10. Bitter says:

    i have no reason to assume anybody ever chooses to be gay. (what would be the advantages, or the appeal, in making a choice like that?)

    Exactly, Nomen. I’ve never bought into that choice argument given what my best friend from Oklahoma would have likely gone through if he had come out while living in our hometown. Talking to my mom about it once, she pointed out that as someone who worked on AIDS outreach and education in the 80’s, she decided it couldn’t have been a choice seeing how much of society opted to treat the men and women she was working with.

    I’m not a fan of legislating marriage from the bench only because it sets the movement back a decade or so each time it happens in a high profile way. For all legal protections (some of which have been mentioned, like hospital visitation rights and other things that aren’t put into contract form, but come as a benefit of marriage), it’s important. I’m with everyone else that forcing churches to marry people would be fundamentally wrong. But then again, so would forcing them to marry Sebastian and I since we’re shacking up together before even being engaged. Yet most of you wouldn’t argue against allowing Sebastian and I to take the walk down the aisle in the legal sense.

  11. gattsuru says:

    Well, speaking as someone that goes both ways, because it’s fun and feels good? There are certainly upsides to good old-fashioned heterosexual tomfoolery, but it doesn’t have a monopoly on the matter. Heterosexual unions are more socially acceptable and (for men) a bit safer statistically; but going gay or lesbian means you don’t need to worry about pregnancy, have significantly fewer neural and cultural differences with your partners, and there are a good number of really enjoyable sensations you don’t get otherwise.

    I mean, what guy wouldn’t take up the opportunity for sex, without getting a closet full of shoes and a half-dozen fondue pots in the long-term relationship?

    But I know people who have been denied hosptial visitation rights because they are not next of kin. How about the common-law right to not testify against your spouse?

    And the fun thing is, every single one of these things could be put in place by other statutes, in a way that benefits heterosexuals, bisexuals, and homosexuals all at the same time. They could also be removed by statute from being recognized in the case of gay marriage.

    Additionally, in the case of hospital visitation rights, the hospital in question could well change their internal policy at whim, and it’s not unknown for such a thing to occur.

  12. Bitter says:

    I’ll be honest, I’m a fan of the more radical approach of getting government out of the business of marriage and going to a more contract-based situation. However, that requires society to hop on board.

    I didn’t mean that it’s not a choice as a knock against gay and lesbian relationships and sex, BTW.

  13. Ian Argent says:

    “It’s not a tradition, it’s an institution. I don’t care if a couple of guys want to # each other up the rear ends, but they can’t be married. That’s like calling the butt of the gun the muzzle; you’re talking about a standard definition as old as our language, and trying to make it something it’s not is disingenious at the very least.”

    I’d just as soon call the government-recognized union a civil union for everyone, and leave marriage for the churches. If you want to do both, more power to you – I did 8 years ago. But my brother and his wife just went the civil route, despite being fairly religious for americans, for reasons that had nothing to do with religion one way or another.

    I said it before, and I’ll say it again – what the government chooses to recognize as civil marriage has a BOATLOAD of legal and property implications, many of which can only be poorly reflected by contract law (or cannot be reflected at all in the case of “next-of-kin” determinations – I know of no way to legally designate a “next-of-kin” without adopting, for example); and contracts can be broken by third parties at the whim of a judge.

  14. RAH says:

    Marriage as a state contact and institution was for property and dowries and rights of protection from in- laws against your enemies. Or used to eliminate war. Marriage as a religious ceremony is to sanction the couple under a stronger law than secular law. It is also used to determine legitimacy.

    FLDS does not use civil marriages just spiritual to avoid bigamy. But those people to seem to consider themselves married. I read a Slate article about geriatric sexual unions in nursing homes among dementia residents and the heart rending separation that happened to one couple because the son found it disgusting. These dementia elders seem to have a strong sex drive after other abilities have diminished. The dementia reduces a lot if inhibitions. But marriage is not allowed due to the inability to be legally competent. Spiritual or ritual marriages would work there and no change the legal benefits of Medicaid.

    It made me think that civil marriage can really be separated quite easily. So why not have a civil ceremony but not a religious ceremony unless find a religion that allows homosexual marriages.

    Problem is that we have SCOTUS precedent against polygamy and bigamy. But if civil marriage is changed in state codes then why not allow all forms of marriage?

    Agreed that any civil contract can be drawn between to consenting adults to give privileges to the partner.

    I dislike the gay agenda because of it is militancy but whatever two people want to do in their home is their business not mine. A single person can get a child either by adoption or if a woman by insemination. There is no rational reason to bar homosexuals.

    Gayness can be choice or not. I have no idea. But in the past the consequences were quite severe and it must be a strong unconscious type of choice to go against losing your head at times.

    But I really hate judges making this decision. Let the states decided in the legislatures.

  15. Ian Argent says:

    Do I look like a raving pro-judicial activist? Pass it in the legislature, by all means.

  16. RAH says:

    On second thought marriage was totally binding by the Catholic Church and the marriage contacts were then binding because have a church sanction by church law prevented the secular from changing and steal property, etc Henry VIII needed to change that so made a new church to change a marriage binding agreement.

top