| Thursday, January 22 2004 |
On Gay Rights... again.
Brian writes what I hope will become the de-facto essay on the Gay Rights vs. Sanity issue. He covers the bases, and I agree completely with everything he has to say.
If conservatives say that the idea of gay marriage threatens the concept of marriage, try to get inside their heads. Understand why they feel that such an alteration of the definition of that ancient establishment is threatening. It's not because they think having married lesbians next door will make their own spouses start wandering. It's because they think they've been cheated, in much the same way as amnesty for an illegal immigrant would make a legal immigrant feel cheated. Marriage is a sacred pact, involving sacrifice as well as ease. To have "holy matrimony" placed on the same reverential level as a "civil union" or a marriage for the sake of other things than the raising of a nuclear family is something that's going to set off warning bells.
This is the grumble factor among most, excluding the religious right. Most who have a problem with Gay Marriage probably do for this reason. It's not an issue of
you're gay, so I dislike you, but rather one of
you're ranting like a banshee about something you think should be given to you, "just because".
Personally, I don't care. A gay couple moving in next door is going to be about as significant as a black or hispanic couple moving in, which is to say not at all. Most of the SouthPark Conservatives, a term which I certainly apply to myself, are real big on the small government concept. Provide for the safety of the nation, and then get your nose out of my business, which includes what goes on in the bedroom. But, I'm not quite obtuse enough to buy into the isolationist ideal of absolutely no social intervention by government. That's simply not going to happen, and frankly I don't think it should.
That concept encompasses the description of "Gay Rights" which I support. One shouldn't be shunned or mistreated because they're gay. They shouldn't be dragged into the street and beaten to death. They shouldn't be fired (or not hired) from a job due to their sexuality. They shouldn't be mocked or ridiculed, unless they do overly silly things which call for it, just like everyone else.
However, I also don't want to see Affirmative Action: Gay Edition, and this is the main problem I have with Gay Marriage, which Brian also gets into:
But also remember that gays don't have to burden themselves with the albatrosses of family life; we're not expected to. We've effectively claimed a big exemption on life. I myself feel extremely guilty over this-- I know that I'd be nowhere near as independently wealthy as I am if I had to support a wife and kids. (Sam Austin said: "Homosexuality is God's way of insuring that the truly gifted aren't burdened with children.") And this guilt drives me to achieve more and give back more to society in my own pursuit of the American Dream. But that guilt probably isn't universal, and many gays-- the most visible ones, dancing on floats on Market Street-- can be quite rightly seen as "taking the easy road", and flaunting it with a "nyah nyah nyah nyah nyaaah nyaaah" and a shake of the ass.
Yup. The tangible benefits of marriage, so far as the state goes anyway, exist for one reason and one reason only: To create an ideal environment to raise kids. This environment is rather important, as without it, we slowly turn into France so far as society goes.
I guess Sam Austin thinks the parents of gay people are all complete dullards, because after all, if they were really gifted, they wouldn't have had them.
Most gay people who rant on the subject of Gay Marriage are speaking, primarily, to the state and government level benefits afforded to traditional couples. They're after the dollars, in a nutshell, and trying to convince anyone who will listen that these benefits are somehow a "right" which applies to them.
Well, it isn't, and it doesn't. It's a benefit afforded to foster a child-rearing environment. The argument is oft made that,
hey, wait a minute: Not all straight couples have kids! Well, no, however a rather significant 26 million straight couples
do have kids, as compared to the tiny fraction of gay couples who have an interest in adopting.
Now, while I realize that Mr. Ass-Shaker on the float isn't representative of gay people on the whole, one must realize that the vast majority of gay couples have no interest in raising children, as well as the fact that they're physically unable to have them save for adoption.
Brian also touches on what could potentially become a very big problem for gays in general, via Mrs. du Toit:
Reasonableness is called for. Baby steps. Broad, sweeping generalizations about those who are opposed to SSM just makes folks more stubborn. It's forced many folks (like myself), who are supportive of 90% of other homosexual rights issues, to stand with the folks at the other extreme. And to be perfectly frank, I don't like it over here, but that seems to be the only group to stand with. (And, I should add, while I'm over here, I'm getting an earful on a whole bunch of other issues. My "resist, resist, resist" warning systems are pretty good, but I'm sure there are cracks in my armor. Do you want a significant majority of reasonable folks left out with this side? I don't).
Exactly right. Aside from the debate on state-level marriage benefits, those who want the nation to become completely sex-blind as we have become virtually color-blind need to realize that prancing on the float and marching down main street isn't gaining them any friends. In fact, it probably does the opposite a whole lot more often.
If gay people want the country to shrug and ask "So?", they need to take a page from the book of Brian, get off the damn float, and act their age.
To quote The Simpsons:
Group: :chanting: We're here, we're queer, get used to it!
Lisa: You do this every year, we are used to it.
Guy: Spoil sport!
posted by Mr. Lion
@
10:37 hours | comments
(2)<<
More
Articles
CopyRight © 2002-2004 CapitalistLion.com All Rights
Reserved
Syndicated news: RSS 2.0 - RSS 1.0