Same-sex marriage vs Civil unions
It does seem odd to seek marriage that has come up through the ranks of ages as a method of legitimising certain people over others - the progeny of this sort of union are better than the progeny of that sort of union. “This woman is my property, as are her children and my other property will go to them if I so decide.” Suzanne du Toit and Annemarie de Vos, who tested the adoption laws - that only one woman could adopt a child, not a pair of women. Annemarie adopted two children, and found that were she to die, that Suzanne would not legally be able to continue to live with and mother the children. They would have to go back into the foster care system and Suzanne would be offered no recognition of time served. They won. The courts now recognise, thanks to them, that those children belong to both women and no one can take them away. They are a whisker’s breadth away from legal marriage. What makes them not married? Certainly not anything in their lives. Only the law and/or a choice on their part.
Firstly, I think that the bottom line to the answer is that SOME gays and lesbians feel that nobody should be standing around saying “No, you can’t get married, that is reserved for heterosexuals only”, and similarly “No, you can’t sit on that bench, it is reserved for whites only”. If you compare any standard of legitimacy regarding civil rights to another issue, the inequalities surface. Just like feminism rode the black consciousness wave in the 60s, so we all ride each other’s waves in every decade since then.
Each standard of legitimacy should be endorsed by government and other legitimising entities because those entities represent our goals and ideals and morals and values, reflected back at us. We elect a government of the people and that government should reflect the values of the people, not the loudest minority. Every society needs a forum to thrash out their beliefs in the process of turning the beliefs into concrete reflections and those reflections are law. Once a law is established it is tested on the streets. No system of government lands fully-formed, well-working, standard-endorsing, in our laps. It has to be questioned on a global scale and that is done through constitutions and courts. A constitution is, and should be, reflective of our desire to be the best humans we can be.
Once we have set the standards we want to live by, in law, then those that dissent will have a chance to see how it works in the real world. Only when dissenters are exposed to something do they think and get a chance to see that (in this case) the:
12 reasons same-sex marriages will ruin society 1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control. 2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can’t legally get married because the world needs more children. 3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children. 4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears’ 55-hour, just-for-fun marriage was meaningful. 5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are property, blacks can’t marry whites, and divorce is illegal. 6. Gay marriage should be decided by people not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities. 7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America. 8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall. 9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behaviour. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract. 10. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why single parents are forbidden to raise children. 11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven’t adapted to cars or longer lifespans. 12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a “separate but equal” institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages for gays and lesbians will.
And if they (gay, straight, whatever) still don’t agree - THEY DON’T HAVE TO ‘TURN GAY’ AND MARRY. What a bonus.
Secondly, “marriage” is changing. But I do believe that even if I don’t believe in marriage anymore, that I should, as fellow human, fight for their right to do as they believe. I would love to be supported in what I believe, so, if I can, I support those that believe. I wouldn’t support a paedophile, a rapist, a murderer - no matter what they advocated. But I would support those that believe in a positive ideal, of love, of long-term togetherness. There are so many cynics out there that this cause is a pleasure to walk behind.
Thirdly, I agree, let’s not throw civil union out with the bathwater - let’s ADD it to the mix. Once gays and lesbians have the right to marry, let’s add civil union. Then heterosexuals and gays and lesbians and whomever wants whatever they want between consenting adults can get what ever they want, whichever kind of union suits their particular relationship and circumstances - only we know (the relationshipees) what would suit us the best, and no government should big brother me out of anything that I want in my personal capacity - especially if it hurts no one.
Fourth, yes let’s - embark on something new too. Let’s explore alternatives to hegemonic standards and norms. It is hard to think outside the box, but I want to. Hmm, already I am stuck - if you have someone, you can have them with or without contract, with or without religious ceremony, with or without symbolic ceremony, with or without marriage - we have all of those things but one right now. What thoughts do you have, Opaqueherm? I would love to debate it but I am mindbound to the hegemony.
I think the whole fear of letting gays marry is about whether or not it will undermine marriage as it stands now. I think - too late, marriage is way undermined already - so much divorce, so much staying married for the children, so much adultery, so much violence - and this is what heterosexuals have done to marriage. Not that the same thing won’t happen under gay marriage. But that’s the thing - nothing will change, except that SOME gays MIGHT show a new way, a better way - marriages built on equality and not diversity, same and not different.
Firstly, I think that the bottom line to the answer is that SOME gays and lesbians feel that nobody should be standing around saying “No, you can’t get married, that is reserved for heterosexuals only”, and similarly “No, you can’t sit on that bench, it is reserved for whites only”. If you compare any standard of legitimacy regarding civil rights to another issue, the inequalities surface. Just like feminism rode the black consciousness wave in the 60s, so we all ride each other’s waves in every decade since then.
Each standard of legitimacy should be endorsed by government and other legitimising entities because those entities represent our goals and ideals and morals and values, reflected back at us. We elect a government of the people and that government should reflect the values of the people, not the loudest minority. Every society needs a forum to thrash out their beliefs in the process of turning the beliefs into concrete reflections and those reflections are law. Once a law is established it is tested on the streets. No system of government lands fully-formed, well-working, standard-endorsing, in our laps. It has to be questioned on a global scale and that is done through constitutions and courts. A constitution is, and should be, reflective of our desire to be the best humans we can be.
Once we have set the standards we want to live by, in law, then those that dissent will have a chance to see how it works in the real world. Only when dissenters are exposed to something do they think and get a chance to see that (in this case) the:
12 reasons same-sex marriages will ruin society 1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control. 2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can’t legally get married because the world needs more children. 3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children. 4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears’ 55-hour, just-for-fun marriage was meaningful. 5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are property, blacks can’t marry whites, and divorce is illegal. 6. Gay marriage should be decided by people not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities. 7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America. 8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall. 9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behaviour. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract. 10. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why single parents are forbidden to raise children. 11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven’t adapted to cars or longer lifespans. 12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a “separate but equal” institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages for gays and lesbians will.
And if they (gay, straight, whatever) still don’t agree - THEY DON’T HAVE TO ‘TURN GAY’ AND MARRY. What a bonus.
Secondly, “marriage” is changing. But I do believe that even if I don’t believe in marriage anymore, that I should, as fellow human, fight for their right to do as they believe. I would love to be supported in what I believe, so, if I can, I support those that believe. I wouldn’t support a paedophile, a rapist, a murderer - no matter what they advocated. But I would support those that believe in a positive ideal, of love, of long-term togetherness. There are so many cynics out there that this cause is a pleasure to walk behind.
Thirdly, I agree, let’s not throw civil union out with the bathwater - let’s ADD it to the mix. Once gays and lesbians have the right to marry, let’s add civil union. Then heterosexuals and gays and lesbians and whomever wants whatever they want between consenting adults can get what ever they want, whichever kind of union suits their particular relationship and circumstances - only we know (the relationshipees) what would suit us the best, and no government should big brother me out of anything that I want in my personal capacity - especially if it hurts no one.
Fourth, yes let’s - embark on something new too. Let’s explore alternatives to hegemonic standards and norms. It is hard to think outside the box, but I want to. Hmm, already I am stuck - if you have someone, you can have them with or without contract, with or without religious ceremony, with or without symbolic ceremony, with or without marriage - we have all of those things but one right now. What thoughts do you have, Opaqueherm? I would love to debate it but I am mindbound to the hegemony.
I think the whole fear of letting gays marry is about whether or not it will undermine marriage as it stands now. I think - too late, marriage is way undermined already - so much divorce, so much staying married for the children, so much adultery, so much violence - and this is what heterosexuals have done to marriage. Not that the same thing won’t happen under gay marriage. But that’s the thing - nothing will change, except that SOME gays MIGHT show a new way, a better way - marriages built on equality and not diversity, same and not different.
Comments
Post a Comment