Why I Oppose Gay Marriage
It's clear to me that eventually men will be able to marry men and women will be able to marry women in all of the United States, it's just not clear exactly when. It's just that I am not very excited about the prospect. In fact, even being homosexual, I actually oppose gay marriage. Not only that — I oppose it as a gay person.
I am most annoyed by straight people's calls for it. Thesepeople who postpone their own marriages until same-sex couples can be married are just being abysmally silly. Their gay friends must love the drama of it all. I have been noticing more discussion of this lately, and now with the passing of Proposition 8 in California and the lesser known Proposition 2 in Florida, both of which enacted a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages, the outrage has reached a crescendo. Finally, Keith Olbermann forced my hand — I can no longer keep silent on the issue of gay marriage and why it is stupid, awful, and undesirable.
I don't understand the reasoning behind the suggestion that civil unions or some other marriage equivalent, with all the benefits of traditional legal marriage, are somehow not good enough. Olbermann seems to be saying that it is only the exact legal label applied to heterosexual unions — actual "marriage" — that will do. But why? What is the reason that it's not good enough? Allow me to put my Freud hat on.
For gay supporters of marriage, this may be an attempt to force society to recognize and, well, love their love. It's a way to make up for the rejection many of them felt by their hick Christian families, or their meathead peers in school as a child. The fact is, they will hate you even more if you are allowed to get married. Now, I don't deny that it is hilarious and delightful to make bible beaters uncomfortable — the idea of a religious government official forced to legally refer to two men as "husbands" puts a smile on my vindictive face — but inflicting pain on one's enemies alone is not reason to call for gay marriage.
Gays want to be accepted by society broadly. Usually they demand that they are accepted as they are, and that society's expectations morph to accommodate their lifestyles. But in rejecting civil unions as insufficient, they are revealing their hand — they don't just want acceptance as they are, they want to mimic heterosexuals. Instead of being, to paraphrase from the last century, "different but equal," they actually want to take part in the identical goofily baroque sacraments as the straights they often ridicule. Why in this instance would homosexuals want to be just like heterosexuals? Are you loud and proud or not? You're queer — get used to it.
A straight friend noted that gays insist on being married in courthouses, and not merely churches, many thousands of which will and do marry same-sex couples. After decades of fighting the state, it seems homosexuals have now made it their god.
The way I see it, rings and ceremonies are for females, so they can show off to their female friends, and so their female mothers can show off to their female friends and relatives. You know what I want? A TAX BREAK. That's what would make me misty-eyed. I don't need anyone to morally "recognize" or "celebrate" my partnership.
Indeed, it seems to me that liberals shouldn't be so fast to agitate for gay marriage — after all, it often (but not always) comes with tax benefits, aka, tax BREAKS, the evil boogeyman of the economically ignorant liberal mainstream. Considering how much more in taxes homosexuals pay due to their generally higher incomes when compared with heterosexuals, gay marriage might actually endanger the ability of the groups who hate our guts to get food stamps. Oh, what a dilemma! Warm-fuzzy feeling from same-sex marriage or warm-fuzzy feeling from lazy bums getting free shit?
Actually, all relationship-
In closing, nobody needs state-recognized marriage for any reason at all. All the arrangements of marriage can be duplicated with contracts, and you do not have to choose the one-size-fits-
I do not need the state to recognize my love, thanks Keith. Now I'd like at least all heterosexuals, if not their loudmouth gay friends, to shut the hell up on the matter. It does not impress me that you have compassion for gay people; I simply do not think you are a mouthbreathing dingbat for finding anything at all wrong with homosexual behavior. That's the expected default, get it? Now stop trying to force your oppressive, frilly, and boring traditional institutions meant to ensure monogamy on my hot, promiscuous, anonymous gay sex.
Filed under: Civil Unions, Gay Marriage | 7 Comments
Tags: Gay Marriage
Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
Call anytime: 917-974-6367
New Release: Debating The Holocaust by Thomas Dalton
Well, I'm not gay, but I've got to agree with you. Nobody needs state recognition of marriage unless they're trying to get special tax breaks or privileges that they can't get otherwise. Get the government out of the marriage business!
"The fact is, they will hate you even more if you are allowed to get married."
That may be true, but the same could be said of inter-racial marriages when they became legal. Of course, initially there was resentment towards it, but acceptance grew over time. Should no form of civil rights be sought after because they piss some people off?
"the idea of a religious government official forced to legally refer to two men as "husbands" puts a smile on my vindictive face but inflicting pain on one's enemies alone is not reason to call for gay marriage."
Government officials, whether religious or not, are supposed to represent all citizens, not just the ones they like. If they are the enemy, then there is a problem. I don't imagine many want to get married to to "stick it to the man."
"they actually want to take part in the identical goofily baroque sacraments as the straights they often ridicule."
Perhaps, but if I think something you want to do is goofy and pointless, does that give me the right to prevent you from doing it?
"After decades of fighting the state, it seems homosexuals have now made it their god."
That's a completely ridiculous statement; no god is necessary for marriage. And you are attacking them for using secular means rather then trying to force people who don't agree to marry them? You're really reaching.
"I don't need anyone to morally "recognize" or "celebrate" my partnership."
All people have the need to feel accepted. Just because you have convinced yourself you don't, doesn't mean others should feel ashamed of wanting a little acceptance. If you're opposed to marriage in general, then you shouldn't be writing about why you're against "Gay Marriage". The only reason you did is to get attention.
"If you were too irresponsible to use birth control or too religious to have an abortion, you deserve to be poor."
How very convenient of you to condemn people for problems you don't have to worry about. I guess I'm safe in assuming you don't use protection for all of your "hot, promiscuous, anonymous gay sex." So if you get AIDS I guess you deserve it, and hope you don't expect the state to pay for your meds.
All the arrangements of marriage can be duplicated with contracts, and you do not have to choose the one-size-fits-all bundle that marriage forces upon couples.
Not quite right. There are a number of assumptions and benefits that the law presumes of married people that it does not presume for unmarried people, regardless of how many contracts they sign. A civil union of equal rights and privileges is probably just as good here. But really, if they're going to get everything that pertains to marriage, why not just call it what it is?
As for one-size-fits-all, the marriage contract is a default contract which can be altered numerous ways through pre- and post-nuptial agreements. The one size is the default size in case you didn't bother to spell out exactly what you meant by "marriage" (and few people do).
The last line is solid fucking gold.
Wonderful! I get so tired of people jumping on the gay marriage bandwagon without a thought. I'm gay and have no desire to get married, not because I'm a lout, but because I understand that marriage is a religious institution, not a legal one. (And should be.) Religions may define marriage however they like, it is not for the government to decide. I believe many gay people simply don't have the inner confidence in themselves or their relationships and that leads to these thin-skinned whining matches about being "equal".
Neither I nor my boyfriend are out to prove anything. Accept us, or don't. We won't step on you if you don't step on us. =)
My proposal is this: Scrap marriage in the USA entirely. If the government wants to offer benefits to committed couples, then civil unions for all, gay, straight, whatever. (If you were married under the old system, you're grandfathered in.) Now, if you want a marriage, speak to your priest, pastor, preacher, etc.
The legal and the religious must be separated.
I don't want equal rights defined as *any* group being given special powers or extra compensating measures. This goes for all civil rights.
To Wesley: "Government officials, whether religious or not, are supposed to represent all citizens, not just the ones they like. If they are the enemy, then there is a problem. I don't imagine many want to get married to to "stick it to the man.""
I thought that was the point of gay marriage. Sticking it to your man.
The vote against gay marriage in California came mostly from the black and hispanic communities. Where was the outrage from the mainstream gay advocacy? Why was there no protest in their "religious" institutions as in the storming of "white" churches et. al.? Just a thought. For the record, I am in strong opposition until proof is provided that homosexuality itself can be proven as biologically and physically viable.
Totally agree with Wesley. Especially about the birth control part.