Back to previous post: Trope on a stick

Go to Making Light's front page.

Forward to next post: Yeah, right, as if

Subscribe (via RSS) to this post's comment thread. (What does this mean? Here's a quick introduction.)

August 19, 2003

Unedifying doings
Posted by Teresa at 08:08 PM *

Tell me again about protecting the sanctity of heterosexual marriage? And if that’s not enough, go here and start reading.

Comments on Unedifying doings:
#1 ::: Larry Lurex ::: (view all by) ::: August 20, 2003, 06:22 AM:

I really don't understand the argument that somehow gay marriage will undermine the "sanctity" of straight marriage. It's not like gay people are going to go round viciously comparing how long they've been together with straight people.

Most people jst want to be loved, and to share the love they find with all their friends and family. What is so wrong with that?

In this country, most marriages are non-religious anyway, so what would be the harm?

I guess there are a few legal niceties to be sorted out (personally I can imagine some company directors marrying for purely financial or tax reasons) but otherwise I don't understand what all the fuss is about. It's not like gay people want to make it compulsory!

#2 ::: Yonmei ::: (view all by) ::: August 20, 2003, 07:22 AM:

It particularly infuriates me as there are straightforward humanitarian reasons why same-sex couples should get the same legal protections and rights as mixed-sex couples can. To argue that it's fundamentally wrong and undermining the sanctity of marriage to give a gay man mourning his partner of 40 years the legal rights of next of kin... or that a lesbian couple entering a nursing home shouldn't be permitted the same rights a heterosexual married couple would expect in the same circumstances... all of this, and more, and you have to ask yourself: "Who benefits by this cruelty?"

#3 ::: Anne Murphy ::: (view all by) ::: August 20, 2003, 07:35 AM:

This reminds me of a TV show I recently saw advertised - like the bachelor, only HE's gay, and some of the contenders for his affection are actually straight.

Can you imagine the networks doing that the other way around? Here, bachelor, a bevy of attractive women, all vying for your favors - but some of them are really lesbians. Can you tell which is which? That might be interesting to watch. Or maybe not. (The bachelor-type "reality" shows are not remotely near my taste in entertainment)

#4 ::: Kip W ::: (view all by) ::: August 20, 2003, 08:36 AM:

Having viewed the site indicated, I can only conclude that Santorum and his fellow humanitarians are merely attempting to protect gays and whoever they're supposed to be leading to (arf!) from having to experience this nasty, dehumanizing ritual.

Let's hear it for courthouse weddings! Enter single, leave married five minutes later. (23 years ago in October.)

#5 ::: Kellie ::: (view all by) ::: August 20, 2003, 10:34 AM:

Kip, someone should mention that to Senator S. I wonder how he'd take the implication of helping homosexuals, whom - of course - he has nothing against. Or maybe that would be the way to shock him into realizing that marriage has quite a bit more problems than just bringing more people to the table.

I wonder if the mug shot will make it into the wedding album?

#6 ::: Jon H ::: (view all by) ::: August 20, 2003, 11:31 AM:

What I don't get is the people who say that marriage has been badly damaged, and gay marriage will damage it beyond repair.

Hello? Any damage to date is entirely the responsibility of straight people. If we straight people can't get our own shit together, that's no reason to penalize gay people.

If marriage is already in a 'crisis' of some sort, then perhaps the solution is to ban straight marriage and leave it to gay people only.

#7 ::: James D. Macdonald ::: (view all by) ::: August 20, 2003, 12:51 PM:

The question of who gets to make health-care decisions for an ill person who may not be able to actively participate in the discussion is non-trivial. Gay marriage? Sure, why not? Long-term stable relationships are a _good_ thing.

#8 ::: sennoma ::: (view all by) ::: August 20, 2003, 01:04 PM:

"Gay marriage? Sure, why not?"

No reason. Well, no *good* reason. All the talk of "damaging the institution of marriage" is so much incense being burned to cover the stench of homophobia, and bastards like Santorum know it. (Was it Andrew Sullivan who suggested naming a nonstandard sex act -- say, interspecies sex -- a "Santorum"?)

#9 ::: Patrick Nielsen Hayden ::: (view all by) ::: August 20, 2003, 01:05 PM:

What I've been hearing for over two decades is that gay Americans want to (1) serve in the military, (2) join established churches, and (3) get married.

For this, they're opposed by people who call themselves "conservatives."

#12 ::: Teresa Nielsen Hayden ::: (view all by) ::: August 20, 2003, 02:34 PM:

So, Patrick:

Speaking as a long-term married heterosexual, do you feel that the prospect of gays being able to marry does diddly-squat to your own marriage? As a separate issue, do you feel that it affects the sanctity (whatever you conceive that to be) of marriage in general, and your own marriage in particular?

Personally, I feel that giving gays the option of a stable, settled, civilly recognized marriage, effectively increases the legitimacy and respectability of the institution.

#13 ::: Xopher ::: (view all by) ::: August 20, 2003, 04:57 PM:

Sennoma, it was Dan Savage. And he had a poll. And he named, not an act, but a substance. I decline to give details.

Smaller type (our default)
Larger type
Even larger type, with serifs

Dire legal notice
Making Light copyright 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 by Patrick & Teresa Nielsen Hayden. All rights reserved.