I Don't Get It

[orikes]

Can someone explain this to me? Every time there I see an article on the controversial issue of gay marriage, there is a politician or other pundit proclaiming that same sex marriage most be opposed to protect our nation's children. Huh?

I can understand that conservatives that frown on gay relationships to begin with will frown on gay marraige, but I just don't see the correlation to the disintigration of the American family when heterosexual couples are perfectly capable of causing grief to themselves and their children all on their own.

Is there some super sekrit mind ray that is broadcast when a gay couple marries that causes heterosexual parents to suddenly become abusive and neglectful of their children? More realistically speaking, are there that many children in gay families, and is the ban on gay marriage *really* stopping these couples from having children if they want them?

There are so many other things that could and should be done to protect the children of this nation. Howabout some economic reforms to get all our out of work, or underpaid parents employed at a decent wage so they can feed and clothe their kids? Howabout promoting sex eduction and birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancies in both teens and adults? Howabout working on our failing education system, both at the grade school and the college level?

I know it's a hot button issue that's meant to cause emotions to rise, but I just don't get the logic behind this particular argument.

Comments

[tnp.livejournal.com]

That's because there is no logic behind that particular argument.

[pomr.livejournal.com]

tnp hit it dead on balls accurate -- there isn't any logic, this argument is based on raw emotion (fear) and a lack of understanding.

Just remember -- PEOPLE are stupid but individuals can be smart.

I sincerely wish I understood why people were such idiots so much of the time. About the only thing that gay marriage is going to do is make some people happy that might have been less so otherwise. :) That's my spin on it. I mean, same sex couples CAN'T produce their own offspring, so how does it impact the family as a whole? They would have to adopt, and guess what, hetero couples do that too. Oh well, sorry. Just irks me.

[orikes13.livejournal.com]

That's the thing that kills me. Serious gay couples ALREADY do what they can to have children, whether it's adopt, surrogates, artificial insimenation, or whatever. I highly doubt that approving gay marriage would do anything to mark a major increase in that type of thing.

Hell, if you want to get down into specifics, the kids raised by gay couples are probalby doing a hell of a lot better than most of the kids raised in inner city poverty. They're getting more reliable shelter, food, and education. Of course, the kicker is that the education is probably one that focuses on tolerance and having an open mind, heaven forbid.

[tnp.livejournal.com]

In fact... http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/07/070506families.htm

[pomr.livejournal.com]

I have it! The ANSWER!

The answer is:

They fear that legalizing same sex marriages will bring about the end of family values because the statistics make hetero families looks bad.

They fear the competition!

[jengagne.livejournal.com]

The other thing gay marriage would do is give same-sex couples the same legal protections enjoyed by heteros. Like say... designating who can make your medical decisions, inherit your estate, etc. and it can't be overridden by your perhaps-intolerant extended family.

Perhaps more importantly, you'd be able to extend medical and insurance benefits to your (same sex) spouse. Heaven forbid. 9_9

I think the real issue here is that people keep mixing up the concept of "marriage" in the religious sense with "union" in the legal sense. They feel that allowing legal union somehow affects the sanctity of their particular religion or culture's idea of marriage.

See, the way it works now (in America anyway) is... you go to the courthouse and get a marriage license. Then they either have a JotP marry you, or you can take the license to your church and get your church-based service provider to marry you.

That's all fine and well, but it results in churches trying to limit who can qualify for a marriage license... which is really none of their damn business, any more than the Catholic church can say "OMG you can't give marriage licenses to divorced people!"

It's up to the individual church organizations to decide who they do and don't want to perform marriages for.

The solution, in my mind, is to actually separate church and state (gee, what a novel concept!)

Have "marriage" strictly be a RELIGIOUS status with NO legal ramifications. (when I say religious, that includes organizations that accept secularists or atheists, like the Unitarian Church)

Have "union" be a strictly LEGAL status with no religious ramifications. It's a contract establishing a legal relationship. Anybody can get one, same-sex or otherwise. THAT is what all the insurance, inheritance, etc. laws should hinge off of.

So, if you go to the courthouse and get a legal union, it's a legally binding business relationship. Whether you then go off and have a religious ceremony to go along with it is your own business.

Under this system, churches can do anything they want about protecting the sanctity of their particular marriage tradition, WITHIN the scope of their community, and can enforce it by choosing who they will and won't perform marriage ceremonies for.

After all, even under our current system, you can get a religious ceremony without the legal status.

So, the entire point of legally establishing your marital status is asserting your right to establish a contract like this:
"I want so-and-so to have this set of legal rights: inheritance, medical decisions. In return s/he agrees to these legal obligations should this contract be ended: child support and alimony as dictated by the court."

Therefore in my mind, the whole gay marriage issue boils down to: Do people have the right to enter into that kind of legal agreement with someone who happens to be the same sex?

Since no OTHER contracts are limited by sex, only by age of consent... why is this one so very different?

Besides, forcing legal obligations on a spouse in return for the legal benefits is the best way to protect children financially and legally.

[orikes13.livejournal.com]

Oh, I agree with your interpretation of the root of the argument wholeheartedly. And while I do not agree with it, I can understand those who do not support homosexuality in the first place not supporting marriage.

BUT, every single time the issue has been brought up lately, the politicians are touting how they need to protect the sanctity of the American Family and the welfare of our nation's children. WTF!?!? That's what I don't get. There is a disconnect there between the two issues, but somehow they all think it's the same thing.

[jengagne.livejournal.com]

I think the real problem is that too many would-be voters get this gut anti-gay reaction and the politicians are trying to surf that without sinking.

Plus it acts as a nice diversionary issue. Kinda like abortion, gets people all worked up to try and interject their own morality into the lives of total strangers...