Sunday, June 15, 2008

Same Sex Marriage

With the dawning of homosexual "marriage" in California, the NYT published an article on homosexual "marriage" in Massachusetts. It was actually very interesting...

Apparently, when marriage was legalized for homosexuals in Massachusetts, there was a rush to the altar... which has since died down considerably. Since its inception in 2004, over 10,500 same sex couples have married there. Over six thousand of those took place in the first six months. The pro-homo-marriage crowd gave some reasons for the drop off in rates... 1. initially, the numbers reflected a pent up demand for marriage, 2. marriage isn't for everybody, and 3. there are only so many gay people in Massachusetts.

One thing in the article that really cracked me up was Jacob Venter and Billy Boney, a gay couple that's having difficulty with the "marriage learning curve." 44 and 36 years old, one would think some of the things they're fighting over would just be non-issues... like "whether to adopt children or have their own." (???) Basic biology should be able to decide that one for them, wouldn't you think? But Jacob Venter complains, "Nothing turns out the way you imagine. There are no role models for gay marriage." Huh. I thought according to the P.R., gay marriage was supposed to be the same as heterosexual marriage because all you need is LOVE. 

Linda Bailey-Davies is 62 years old and she married her partner who is 67. Linda says she feels "totally different inside my skin" because of getting married. She now feels "legitimate in the world." I am just having such difficulty understanding why we are legitimizing sex between women and sex between men. I really don't get it. 

And then the NYT says:

While many couples want conventional marriages, some are drawing on a creative definition of family forged while living "outside mainstream society," said Joyce Kauffman, a family lawyer and gay activist. "They've incorporated whatever's outside the box into their marriage."

Eric Erbelding and his husband, Michael Peck, both 44, see each other only every other weekend because Mr. Peck works in Pittsburgh. So, Mr. Erbelding said, "Our rule is you can play around because, you know, you have to be practical."

Mr. Erbelding, a decorative painter in Boston, said: "I think men view sex very differently than women. Men are pigs, they know that each other are pigs, so they can operate accordingly. It doesn't  mean anything." 

Still, Mr. Erbelding said, most married couples he knows are "for the most part monogamous, but for maybe a casual three-way."

Huh?

Somebody - please tell me how you can be "for the most part" monogamous. You either are or you aren't. Since monogamous means that you have only ONE sex partner, you can't possibly have casual three-ways and still say you're monogamous. That's ridiculous... but I suppose since marriage is being redefined, we might as well redefine monogamy, too. 

Mostly, from reading the article, I gathered that the NYT interviewed a pretty mixed up lot of folks. I'm sad for them. Being legally allowed to marry doesn't actually do anything to legitimize any action. It doesn't make it so that people (generally) are more accepting of a lifestyle. And it doesn't make them any happier than they were before. 

So... why the big push for homosexual marriage across the country?



2 comments:

Anonymous said...

“Being legally allowed to marry doesn't actually do anything to legitimize any action. It doesn't make it so that people (generally) are more accepting of a lifestyle. And it doesn't make them any happier than they were before.

So... why the big push for homosexual marriage across the country?”

I don’t think the point of legalizing same-sex marriage was to make people happier or make the public more accepting…the point was that marriage be equal. Those other things were just potential benefits. Even if allowing gays to marry doesn’t improve or legitimize a single relationship, it doesn’t matter...the point is you can’t allow some couples to marry but not let others. It is a matter of equality under the law.

4ofusinNC said...

Anonymous,

It's fine to say that the point was not to make people happier or make the public more accepting -- okay. But you're trying to make a point that doesn't make sense to me. Saying that you can't allow some couples to marry but not let others - and that it's a matter of equality under the law begs a question: What about first cousins who fall in love? They are not allowed to marry. What about a brother and sister? They are not allowed to marry. I cannot marry my father. My mother cannot marry my brother. Even if you allow same sex marriage, there are still cases where some people are allowed to marry and some aren't.

Do we need to remove all those taboos as well? Then, what about the teacher who wants to marry his student? Sorry, but we don't even allow THEM to DATE. Well, why not?? Should we remove those taboos, too? And then what about a sixty year old man who wishes to marry a twelve year old girl? Is this something that should be smiled on by our society? How about nine years old?

Everybody, at some point, draws the line. There is always a scenario somewhere that will make someone squeamish. There will always be some people allowed to marry and others not. This is not inequality under the law... Every person is subject to the same rules - and each person CAN get married if they are following the rules. Same sex marriage just changes what the rules are, but it doesn't eliminate all of them.

So -- again. Why the push for same sex marriage? Why should we change those specific rules and keep the others?