Gay Marriage Underestimated(From school)

[Xavier_Holland]

I am utilizing this article as a resource for a class I am currently enrolled in at college and I was shocked by the quote contained within.

GAYS’ IMPACT ON MARRIAGE UNDERESTIMATED
Jeff Jacoby
It was a year ago last month that the Vermont law authorizing same-sex
civil unions—a marriage by another name—took effect, and the New York
Times marked the anniversary with a story July 25. “Quiet Anniversary for
Civil Unions,” the double headline announced. “Ceremonies for Gay Couples
Have Blended Into Vermont Life.” It was an upbeat report, and its message
was clear: Civil unions are working just fine.
The story noted in passing that most Vermonters oppose the law. Presumably,
they have reasons for not wanting legal recognition conferred on
homosexual couples, but the Times had not room to mention them. It did
have room, though, to dismiss those reasons—whatever they might be—as
meritless: “The sky has not fallen,” Gov. Howard Dean said, “and the institution
of marriage has not collapsed. None of the dire predictions have
come true. . . . There was a big rhubarb, a lot of fear-mongering, and now
people realize there was nothing to be afraid of.”
In the Wall Street Journal two days later, much the same point was
made by Jonathan Rauch, the esteemed Washington journalist and vice
president of the Independent Gay Forum. Opponents of same-sex marriage,
he wrote, worry “that unyoking marriage from its traditional male-female
definition will destroy or severely weaken it. But this is an empirical proposition,
and there is reason to doubt it. Opponents of same-sex marriage have
done a poor job of explaining why the health of heterosexual marriage depends
on the exclusion of a small number of homosexuals.”
The assertion that same-sex marriage will not damage traditional family
life is rarely challenged, as Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., said during the
1996 congressional debate over the Defense of Marriage Act.
“I have asked and I have asked and I have asked, and I guess I will die . . .
unanswered,” Frank taunted. “How does the fact that I love another man and
live in a committed relationship with him threaten your marriage?
Are your relations with your spouses of such fragility that the fact that
I have a committed, loving relationship with another man jeopardizes them?”
When another congressman replied that legitimizing gay unions “threatens
the institution of marriage,” Frank said, “That argument ought to be made
by someone in an institution because it has no logical basis whatsoever.”

So now I have to write 750 words concerning it, and I definitely have more than a mouthful.

 

[dunno260]

I recently had to do a very short paper about the philisophical sides to gay marriage based on two articles we had read. However, the one opposing gay marriage more or less was in support of civil unions, but not explicitly so. The argument was fairly cogent and it wasn't rampantly homophobic like most arguments are.

However, it did assert that gay marriage would weaken traditional marriages because gays are more promiscuous and thus it would weaken the bonds of traditional marriage. Now, the truth is probably that gays as a group are more promiscuous, though most people who assert this say it isn't anything about being gay per se, but its simply its because men are having sex with other men. It does acknowledge that putting a relationship into a more formal bounds it might decrease this somewhat, but we of course don't know either way. This argument is fine, and I do think it does express a legitimate concern, though I don't agree with it.

However, what I didn't like was the comparison the author used was the societal taboo on incest (and thus the lawa that we have, though that are rarely enforced). This was a really weak argument, and I think the author got the reason for the societal taboo on incest wrong. It is my belief that the taboo doesn't exist to protect underage children from abuse by another relative, but rather to prevent the genetic damage than inbreeding can bring (which is what I believe).

Unfortunately, I didn't have much room to shred the paper, though I doubt I could have done a great job since this is a philosophy class (and I would be a horrid philosophy writer), but I would have loved to have done so. Sadly 3 pages is just too short.

I believe there is a legitimate argument for the other side, but very few actually make it and stick to the illogical talking points. Thankfully, it is really on a matter of time as the polls show that the young overwhelmingly support gay marriage. It isn't of much comfort to those who want to marry now, but its headed to that.

 

[slobone]

Now, the truth is probably that gays as a group are more promiscuous, though most people who assert this say it isn't anything about being gay per se, but its simply its because men are having sex with other men.

You here this a lot, but has anybody actually ever documented it with solid research? I don't have any ax to grind one way or the other, but I'm curious.

 

[Xavier_Holland]

This was my response to that topic. I hope everyone can relate to what I was saying and how much bullshit it is when it comes down to it.

The main discussion element within this article would be the subject of civil union between the same sex genders and the sub-cultural affect it might have on the rural and suburban communities. Committed and willing couples of homosexual nature have been oppressed and restricted from pairing for centuries and the newly appointed stature concerning a homo-hetero equality revolving society is dismissed, or otherwise found abnormal by those currently residing within Vermont. The stability and foundations of marriage set firmly in religious beliefs additional to the general consensus of popular taboo when explaining homosexual groups tends to constrict the image and acceptance of this kind of thing. Personally, I don’t live in Vermont but it is more commonly a fear of the unknown neighbor than a decent and reasonable objectifying argument when the word,” healthy” is later introduced. In most cases I have usually heard of revolving around unhealthy couplings, it is a heterosexual marriage. For example domestic violence, spousal abuse, alcoholic dependency, media desensitized children or adolescents, and decreased expressive value in a religion often shunning the thought of male and male or female and female families.
Clearly, homophobia is because of a mass influenced emotive response when an outside element from a less parallel lifestyle is introduced. There are new degrees of physical and emotional awareness for most community members and it’s more often defined as confusion. Control has often been the most sought after dividend in the world today, and the uncontrollable populations are thought to be more chaotic. Profound legislative and judicial actions have simply passed the right for such a thing to occur. However, love is something that is consequentially uncontrollable on any plane. The sanctity of two individuals conjoining on the principle of marriage is threatening to the straight community as it is more often unusual and misunderstood. Love in itself can be defined on several levels broadening later from youth engineered acceptance or opposed strongly by adult suppressing conformity issues.
Homosexuality is defined in most dictionaries as a sexually originating preference or act committed between anyone and another person of the same sex engaging in sexual congress. However, that is not say that an emotionally professed feeling should be denied recognition because it is more often associated with a beginning idea derived primarily from sexually explicit thoughts for two people to bond together. Atheist marriages are allowed the word or name of God to be removed, yet those who are atheist and homosexual be it male or female do not have that right. Legally, a man can divorce and marry as many times as he wants to a female though it is not quite so easy for the exact same thing to occur with males and males. Female pairings are often labeled as a confusing relationship because there in no initial masculine or feminine origin. Languages are often built on the vowel enunciations and vocabulary written for the context from which it’s used. For instance a masculine sense or a feminine sense is often directed to emphasize gender specific impressions. Socially, as time passes the subtle nature of all things are then absorbed if done so peacefully for an extended period of time. Legalizing the gay marriages in Vermont even though opposed by most of the population does not mean that it didn’t save lives, decrease hate-crime committed acts of violence, and prejudicial discrimination. The inevitability of equality enveloping the basis of privilege and rights will be the same determining outcome as always in history. Homosexuality is not an erasable ratio from the textbooks and almanacs of the world, it also revolves around love and is more feared now than it will be in the future. I think society should allow the passing of time to reveal all hidden mystery.

I didn't need to write exactly 750 words but 350-750. I found that out later and shortened it up a bit. I just felt so passionately because I have a friend who wants to marry his boyfriend and they've been together for 6 years no cheating.

Yeah, that's not an easy thing for straights either...

 

[Kulindahr]

That's not a bad piece of writing, dude!

I'm puzzled as to which quote in the article shocked you, though. Maybe it's because I've heard them all. Care to enlighten me?

 

[Xavier_Holland]

It was actually the latter half of the paragraph right here.

The assertion that same-sex marriage will not damage traditional family
life is rarely challenged, as Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., said during the
1996 congressional debate over the Defense of Marriage Act.
“I have asked and I have asked and I have asked, and I guess I will die . . .
unanswered,” Frank taunted. “How does the fact that I love another man and
live in a committed relationship with him threaten your marriage?
Are your relations with your spouses of such fragility that the fact that
I have a committed, loving relationship with another man jeopardizes them?”
When another congressman replied that legitimizing gay unions “threatens
the institution of marriage,” Frank said, “That argument ought to be made
by someone in an institution because it has no logical basis whatsoever.”

My sexual freedom, my religious freedom, and my personal freedom endow me with the ability to choose. I want the right to love whom I wish to love, to care for whom I wish to care, and to embrace someone as much as I would a friend and lover freely without being told how to feel. Being told that I am wrong for something I feel deep inside me, must I 'fix' myself so that I can carry on in life?

Am I really that different? Not a no, but a hell no. And I am an angry bi, with a purpose. I'm going to make sure someone some day hears me and knows I NEED this for myself as much as I need it for my friends and for my loves. It's my historically sound truth, my scientific truth, and my geographical truth that gays will always exist.

And eventually we will be noticed and taken seriously.

 

[Kulindahr]

Wow -- quite passionate, dude!

And it brings to mind one more reason that I oppose gay marriage laws: as a bisexual, there are times when I find it hard to imagine choosing one over the other, and so I dream of a relationship like two I've known -- two guys and a gal! But a gay marriage law wouldn't allow for that -- it would just add another accepted form to a list, excluding all others. If we want to be free to follow those feelings deep inside us, we have to be dedicated to ending ALL forms of tyranny, and if gay marriage becomes legalized, it will still leave out other forms... and be just a new partner in the tyranny.

 

[dunno260]

You here this a lot, but has anybody actually ever documented it with solid research? I don't have any ax to grind one way or the other, but I'm curious.

Well Stephen Pinker, who is a big name in the evolutionary psychology field, cited some research in his book Mind Wide Open (I haven't gotten to this section in the book yet, its been a heavier read than I thought it would be). Our professor in the philosophy read the passage. In a survey done on a group of males and females in 1982 or so (pre AIDS) in San Fransisco, it did note that men as a whole had many more sexual partners and also desired to have many more sexual partners than women. I think that there are similar studies. Pinker's argument is that there is an evolutionary advantage to men having a desire to have more sexual partners and for women to have fewer, and I can buy that., though it may not be true. Pinker does make the argument that it is something that is more hard wired, and isn't something that we gain from our experiences growing up.

 

[ambiguity]

^^In that group of males and females did they break them up further into gay and straight?

Because if you still have all the straight men lumped in with the gay, then the results are screwed for citing a study like that. There are a lot more straight men than gay, so that alone would also disprove their thoughts on gay men ruining the "institution of marriage" since you have more straight men desiring more sexual partners (ie: women) as well.

 

[cocktales]

NO, chicken little, "The sky is NOT; nor will it fall"!!

Why people listen to clergy who use this age-old tactic to cause people to fear Gay people!

Why?

I mean, we are probably the least menacing kinda folk you ever would wanna meet, right?

Good thread!

 

[dunno260]

^^In that group of males and females did they break them up further into gay and straight?

Because if you still have all the straight men lumped in with the gay, then the results are screwed for citing a study like that. There are a lot more straight men than gay, so that alone would also disprove their thoughts on gay men ruining the "institution of marriage" since you have more straight men desiring more sexual partners (ie: women) as well.

No, it didn't. And the point is that this is a single study in a single city at a single city, which certainly coild skew the result. And it might actually be the case that there is some biological difference that actually suppresses the sex drive in gays, or at least the desire for multiple partners. Pinker cites this article in his chapter on the differences in the brain for males and females and what is the evolutionary advantage to that. He doesn't make any argument regarding gay marriage, or homosexuality for that matter. The point that could be extrapolated is that gay men have more sexual partners simply because their sexual partners are men. The other corrolary would be that lesbians have fewer sexual partners because their partners are women.

I think ultimately, that its not going to be a big deal just from a numbers standpoint. I think the 2-5% of people being homosexual is the figure, and that not all gay people will get married. So I don't think that gay marriage will have any drastic effect, even if it is true that gays will have more extramarital affairs than straights. I am sure there is more psychological studies on this, but I only know of this one study, and drawing any conclusions from a study isn't smart. However, the guy who wrote the book (he didn't do the study) is a very smart guy, and his stuff is very solid, so I would imagine that his conclusions are based on more than a single study.

 

[ambiguity]

However, I would imagine that even though gay men may be more promiscuous, the more promiscuous of us wouldn't be interested in marriage to begin with. As it's still a very new thing for us, the ones that are going to be sleeping around anyway would probably just say "screw marriage". After all it isn't nearly as expected of us as it is of straight people.

Therefore, you'd more likely find the commitment minded homosexuals getting married rather than the more promiscuous one's. Thereby keeping the "sanctity of marriage" intact in regards to that aspect.

 

[irish1]

However, I would imagine that even though gay men may be more promiscuous, the more promiscuous of us wouldn't be interested in marriage to begin with. As it's still a very new thing for us, the ones that are going to be sleeping around anyway would probably just say "screw marriage". After all it isn't nearly as expected of us as it is of straight people.

Therefore, you'd more likely find the commitment minded homosexuals getting married rather than the more promiscuous one's. Thereby keeping the "sanctity of marriage" intact in regards to that aspect.

Gay men may be more promiscuous simply because marriage has been denied to us up until the present time.

In a book entitled "Passing" by Brooke Kroeger, a heterosexual couple was arrested after they married bacause they were breaking the laws of Virginia: one was black, the other, white. Those laws have now changed, and this couple, and others like them, are no longer in danger of ostracism because of their personal choice to marry.

Promiscuity will always exist. Men and women who want a committed relationship will remain faithful. No law can encourage a couple to be monogamous; this desire comes from within, whether by religious training, or familial example.

The movement to make gay marriage-or gay unions, if you prefer-legal, will never be completely understood or accepted by all of society. This does not, however, prevent gay men and women from forming loving, committed relationships.

This is an excellent thread.