I am not usually one to ban any particular discussion or sentiment from being raised here, but, I swear, if anyone hoists the following canard up, I will smack them about the head and shoulders with a wet newspaper:
Current law on marriage does not discriminate against gay people. After all, they can still marry, and, under the law, they are eligible to marry just whom everyone else is: someone of the opposite gender. Since they have the same rights as everyone else, there is not discrimination, let alone bias or prejudice, involved.
This one strikes me as so jaw-droppingly insulting — both to the intelligence of the listener and to the sensibilities of gay people — that it defies belief. Consider it one of my hot-buttons, because whenever I hear it, I see red.
Much has been argued over the parallels between the racial civil rights movement of the 50s-60s and the orientation civil rights movement of today. While analogies can be suspect, I think the similarities tend to outweigh the differences. So, for example, let us consider miscegenation laws, which are closest to current anti-gay marriage laws. Consider someone from Alabama c. 1936 saying the following:
Current law on marriage does not discriminate against people of color. After all, they can still marry, and, under the law, they are eligible to marry just whom everyone else is: someone of the same race. Since they have the same rights as everyone else, there is not discrimination, let alone bias or prejudice, involved.
But that’s completely unreasonable, one might exclaim. What harm does it do for a black and a white person to marry? Why should a black person who wishes to marry a white person — or a white person who wishes to marry a black — be so restricted? Saying that a white person can marry whomever they want, as long as it’s white — is like saying someone can proclaim whatever political speech they want, so long as it’s pro-government. Or that they can go to whatever church they want, so long as it’s the one they grew up in. Or that someone of Italian heritage can marry whomever they want, so long as it’s another person of Italian heritage. It’s absurd, and insulting.
Exactly. And I believe that the same applies to to the same argument when framed in terms of gay marriage.
There are plenty of other arguments I’ve heard against gay marriage. I disagree with most, if not all of them, but at least they bear discussion. This particular one, however, seems so completely missing of the point that it simply boggles the mind.
So don’t, okay? Because seeing red and/or being mind-boggled is not something I need these days.
Unfortunately, freedom of religion is being in a similar way these days.
I’m not sure I follow you.
I do so Love Letters to the Editor:
Letters to the Editor, March 10 RMN
March 10, 2004
We must impose our beliefs on all others
Marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman: Say “I do” before a preacher (or ship’s captain) and – bingo! – instant sacred bond! Unless you and your beloved have the same kind of genitals. Oh, and if you were born with both sets of genitals, and doctors (not God) decided your gender, no sacred bond for you either.
Marriage is for procreating: If you are gay or infertile, no marriage for you. God said to Adam and Eve, “Be fruitful and multiply . . .” But he was really talking to all 6 billion of us. He wants us to continue to breed like rabbits while fighting over food, water, land and oil until Jesus comes back.
Think of the children: They must never witness our nation condoning the “bond of love” between two men, or two
women. We have to show our children that violence and persecution are sometimes necessary to prevent the wrong kind of love.
Marriage is a family value: God designed the family with a feminine and a masculine figure so that children get the right balance of nurturing and toughening. Feminine males (like me) need to marry masculine females (like my wife) in order to have a normal family. Our children know if they ever have a homosexual relationship, we’ll judge them, too . . . and harshly.
There really isn’t any such thing as homosexuality. There are only perverted heterosexuals. Now these perverts want “committed” relationships. But we cannot let them ruin our otherwise perfect institution.
I try to live and think like Jesus, who played strictly and unquestioningly by the book. Our main job as Christians is to impose these never- changing rules on everyone. Gays must remain in loveless, pretend- straight marriages or be celibate. We who are blessed with God-sanctioned desires will continue to preserve our nation’s embattled morality.
Jon Stubbs
Lafayette
I was havin a South Pacific flashback whilst reading this one:
You’ve got to be taught from year to year.
It’s got to be drummed in your dear little ear.
You’ve got to be carefully taught.
You’ve got to be taught to be afraid
Of people whose eyes are oddly made,
And people whose skin is a different shade,
You’ve got to be carefully taught.
You’ve got to be taught before it’s too late,
Before you are six or seven or eight,
To hate all the people your relatives hate,
You’ve got to be carefully taught!
You’ve got to be carefully taught!
And remember…Who Would Jesus Hate.
Mr Stubbs’ letter is a bit broader in tone than I find helpful — but given the usually dismal quality of cognition that passes for Letters to the Editor in the Rocky, there’s not much he said in mocking jest that I haven’t seen asserted as God’s Own Truth there before.
Steven Den Beste, who I usually find at least interesting to read, argues in favor of The Forbidden Discussion — though since it’s his blog, he’s able to do so (and he’s in favor of gay marriage). He does bring a bit more rigor to the argument than most folks I hear who do so (it’s usually presented with a consdescending rhetorical smirk, “See, I’ve trumped you with my Mighty Logic!”), but I still find it unpersuasive.