I had a great conversation with a friend the other day about gay marriage. I'm bored, and feel like posting, and am high, so here is a summary. Excuse the verbosity.
Points I made, some of which I got from this very thread:
1. It doesn't really hurt straight marriages in any way.
2. By protecting homosexuals, and granting/protecting their rights and privileges, we are protecting the rights and privileges of the rest of society. Sort of like the Neimoller poem "when they came for the social democrats, i said nothing b/c i wasn't a social democrat.....".
He then said that he has no problems with giving them equal rights, and that he fully supports civil union, tax bens, hosptital visitation, estate consequences, health insurance bens, etc...
His main point was that it shouldn't be CALLED "MARRIAGE." B/c that word applies only to a man and a woman.
So, rather coyly I might add, I said something like:
"Ohhhhh....I think I get you. You want it to be just like marriage, and equal in rights and privileges, but you just don't want it to be CALLED "marriage." He said "Yeah" I then slightly paraphrased "So you want it to be equal to marriage, but called something seperately." He again agreed.
Then I said: "So you want it to be seperate, but equal."
He didn't answer, but his face said "Ugh".
You see I like to play these games. I like to get people to agree to simple little short statements. Singularly, they all seem reasonable. But when you string them together, it doesn't quite seem like what you agreed to. Carrying things to their logical extreme and necessary outcomes is fun, and more people ought to do it. But I digress.
He said "Well no it's not seperate but equal, b/c in the racial context they never really were equal." They had to sit in the back of the bus, their bathrooms were smaller, fountains warm, etc.
To get back on track I said "Regardless, seperate is never equal." After some discussion of the finer points of LEGAL equality it seems there is something else, that homosexuals really want: social equality.
You see in Brown v. Bd. of Educ. the USSC shoved racial LEGAL equality down our throats before there was ever any SOCIAL equality. Some (myself included) would say that blacks and other minorities still don't enjoy social equality, but we are a
of a lot closer since the law stepped in line.
Basically, IMO this whole story is about the law beginning to step in line. My friend held and probably does still hold deeply seeded fundamental beliefs and opinions that marriage is between a man and a woman. Yet just being able to logically articulate why it is not, and what the repucussions of viewing it that way are, might make him think about.
There are a shitload of stupid
s in this county. I mean REALLY stupid. If you're reading this, you're probably not one of them b/c (lets be frank) Stupid
s don't read and write in debate threads on internet msg bds. Hell alot of them don't read and write at all. Most of these people are christian and most very religious christians are against gay marriage. I don't really know where I'm going with this other than to point out that it is perfectly understandable why there is so much opposition to this movement. IT is different, and people are afraid of different.
Calling it a different word is seperate but equal and seperate is never equal. Still, it is worth studying and thinking/talking about the differences b/w legal equality and social equality. Some food for thought might be:
1. Does legal equality bring about social equality? Many would say that emprically we see that it does. Obama is a presidential nominee.
2. Should the law be used to force society to better themselves? Is this democratic or oligarchic?
3. How can we speed up the process by which social equality catches up to legal? How to we "shorten the gap."
To end the recantation of the discussion, I ought to give him credit for never levying the following argumetns:
1.
It dilutes the sanctity of 'real marriage.' He didn't make this point b/c he didnt believe it. I actually brought it up and he said "the sanctity of marriage was diluted long long ago." We joked about how homosexuals ought to have the right to be just as miserable as everybody else. This point did carry us into a talk about the weakening of the family unit though. Many more families are destroyed, fractured, divided, divorced, etc. nowadays than they were back when he was young (30/40 years ago). It's true and I agree. It sucks and I don't know what can be done about it. I recognize that many view the recognition of gay marriage as part of this downward slide.
2.
If two men can get married, whats next? Marriage to animals? This is just completley ludacris, and
anyone who makes this point ought to be drawn and quarted immediately.
Then his intestitines ought to be wrapped around ones' legs and used as legwarmers in an aerobics class.
k
