- Not completely buying into over-reaching points of their dogma that define what a homosexual must be, and not unrelated is,
- Not completely buying into priveledged and special treatment that they believe their lifestyle should afford.
The latter comes from a view of many struggling domestic situations which has come from my (albeit limited) social work. So many families are headed by mutual trust more than romantic affair. They are sisters who share in common abusive or neglectful men who no longer have a place in raising children they had with them. They share in common two men who also had their wives taken by death and other tragic circumstance. They are an elderly couple and a mother or father who's spouse is now medically incapable of taking care of children.
However fair and circumspect I find that opinion to be, it always amazes me that when I express such an opinion, otherwise erudite people and institutions censor it as violating one or both of the over-reaching points of homosexualist dogma mentioned above. The most recent case is the Economist, and the debate they are having between Evan Wolfson and Maggie Gallagher. The recent comment was deleted for being homophobic. I invite anyone to tell me how this comment is homophobic in any way other than violating the two points of homosexualist dogma mentioned above...
To all,
I define the debate thus...
Marriage is between a man and a woman.
Cons:
- People who cannot love honor and cherish someone of the other gender in any meaningful marital way will not fall in its title.
Pros:
- The civil principle of integration is honored and revered. Marriage equality, to me, is equally respecting and valuing the contribution of both the man and the woman. Anything contrary to that equal recognition is a step back in marriage equality. Intolerance of the other gender is not a platform for love and tolerance that marriage is meant to foster.
I'll be honest. I think it is disappointing, and sad, that a much more universal debate of assisting intact and other family forms, is hijacked by gay pride. Consider that same-sex unions, like a mother and daughter pair from Liverpool, are excluded from the benefits that two lesbians get. Consider that any set of families that do not fit what currently is a marriage -- unless they are headed by homosexuals -- are left out of the picture.
- The notion of kinship and responsibility for those that create a life will be valued. With kinship comes the realization of heritage, culture, and your identity. We aren't created from nothing when we first breathe, we are a part of millions who went before. Even for children who, out of tragedy, no longer have access to their kin the fact the attempt to restore both a father and mother still reveres and honors these values.
The marginalization of alternate family forms, unless they are homosexual families, is the worst part of the debate. I do see a need to support alternate families, but I see they all equally should be assisted. I see them as the banding together of broken families, in need of help like any other.
On the face of it, the unaided child is the one we should worry about being left in the cold. The first way to help them is to bolster the intact family, so they can know their own parents and see them value the other half of their identity as well as their own. I see that marriage will do that nicely.
Then when that family is broken, that any family situation that bands together should be recognized. Call them civil unions (there is nothing homosexually specific about that, is there?). Call them Domestic Partnerships. Call them Reciprocal Beneficiaries. All of those terms have, in one government or another, recognized homosexual-only relationships, and for no good reason have they been only for homosexuals.
But let marriage be marriage, let it cover the things that are unique to how children are created. And let civil unions be civil unions, rather than a euphemism for homosexuality.
Of course the statement is called homophobic: 1) Because name calling is the first refuge of identity politics and, in a broader sense, of "progressive" ideology; 2) As you pointed out, anything that interferes with gay ideology is untrue and therefore suspect.
ReplyDeleteThere is, of course, no room for dissent where gay activism is concerned. Its ideology is far more dogmatic, and more importantly, more intolerant, than most ideologies in the US, including leftist liberalism. That the two come together in mutual support makes for a truly intolerant and intolerable pair.
Euripides,
ReplyDeleteI do think many people who happen to agree with gay marriage, may understand that not all comments/questions/concerns are homophobic by nature. I believe recently in a school, there was a discussion lead by a teacher on homosexuality and acceptance. One student asked a question in a respectful manner and was asked to leave the room by the teacher, because the teacher. I assume felt overwhelmed. When I was reading the comment section on NPR, many people who otherwise agree with gay marriage were very concern that a student couldn't ask a question in a non-derogatory manner.
It isn't as much as the law, but actually the word marriage and how to do we communicate a concept. If you live in a community in which many children do not live in the same household with both his/her mother and father, in which one parent is absent and the other parent has a weak support system due to a breakdown within their own family, the concept of marriage holds a different meaning then the theory and discussion in a classroom. To live with and deal the instability (and sometimes chaos) these children and parents are faced with is real, and while we can't 'force marriage', it's an ideal that we should discuss, promote, and acknowledge as a way to stabilize families and equally share child rearing between both mother and father that can include the extended family as well, focusing resources (emotionally and financially) on children.
If the government doesn't see the stabilization of the family as an objective in their public policy, fine repeal the marriage laws and call everything a civil union if the objective is about at-will relationship of any two people.
Renee:
ReplyDeleteMy comments were specifically aimed at gay activists, not those who support same sex marriage in general. The former group have proven themselves intolerant in every respect to any other views about homosexuality and marriage than their own. The group you describe is much broader and may include reasonable people who understand that not all conversations about gays and marriage are homophobic. There's a distinction between the two groups of people.
You mention in your second paragraph that the question of marriage isn't so much about the law but about the definition. Fine, I'll accept that idea but do not have to accept that gay activists and same sex marriage advocates have a right to justify their moral standard and definitions of marriage and family by changing the law.
That's the real crux of the issue here which you then go on to concede in your third paragraph - that the law must be changed in order to enforce gay ideology.
It is an inconsistent view. Gay activists ultimately want to enforce their version of morality and definition of marriage by law, not by change to social morals. At the same time, they condemn anyone else who disagrees with their moral system by condemning others for having a different set of morals.
You've put your finger on the problem with your examples.