Getting married is gay
In an interview with ABC News yesterday, the President finally came out of the closet — kind of. He stated for the first time on the record that he supports gay marriage. But he stopped short of promising any executive or legislative action toward this cause. How convenient. Just the night before, North Carolina voted by a wide margin for a constitutional ban on gay marriage, becoming the 30th state to pass such a ban.
I admit that Obama’s vocal support for gay marriage is monumental. I also recognize that the issue of gay marriage is the next social battlefield in America. However, I hope this election does not get bogged down with social issues. High unemployment, the poor housing market, and a disaster of impending debt are the urgent and important issues. No one is going to be able to afford gay wedding ceremonies, easily accessible birth control, or teenage abortions if we don’t fix the economy.
That’s what killed Rick Santorum. I think Republicans and even some Democrats respect a politician that opposes gay marriage. There is a plausible argument there. Gay marriage seems contrary to the original definition, intent, history, and overall institution of marriage. But when a politician goes out and asks for a (federal) Constitutional ban on gay marriage, it seems zealous. In today’s modern times with real economic and international problems, do we really need to amend the Constitution of the United States for the sake of marriage? As much as I like Rick, I think he let his social convictions get the best of him.
To some people (the economy be damned!) gay marriage is a human and civil right. But I disagree. A right is not something the government can give you; it is something they can’t take away from you. I believe this is the big misconception of liberal thinking and the entitlement culture. Freedom to choose your work, life, home, and leaders is a right. But jobs, education, and healthcare are not rights. You are not born with them. Marriage is the same. Who you choose to be with is a right, but government benefits and recognition related to this choice are a privilege. I think the only right that is compromised in prohibiting gay marriage is the right not to be discriminated against. Heterosexuals can marry who they are naturally attracted to, but homosexuals cannot.
Homosexuality is not an uncommon phenomenon. It has been around since the beginning of time, and is a small part of all of us. But as much as I respect the nature and history of homosexuality, I do not support nor encourage it. All other social factors being equal, homosexuality is atypical to, and less salutary than, normal romantic and sexual behavior. In the realm of evolution and biology it is deficient in that it does not perpetuate the species. Also, acts of sexual intimacy between gays require at least one form of sodomy, which is traditionally less sanitary than conventional intercourse. There are also inherent disadvantages in parenting. To me, these are signs of human dysfunction that I find hard to promote.
However, I don’t condemn homosexuality either. I believe almost all homosexuals have a neurologically wired mental and emotional disposition to it. They engage in relationships and sex with other consenting homosexuals, without hurting others. I like gays, but they usually don’t like me, because of their liberal politics and hyper-sensitivity. And despite my sharp comments on evolution and sodomy, I don’t believe they have anything to be ashamed of.
People might ask me, what if your son or daughter were gay? I would love and support them. I might even support gay marriage on the political front, but for very selfish reasons. I would do it to show my kids support, not because I felt it is was right in my heart. The same if I were gay. I would want my kids to be straight. Not because of the social challenges they might face, but because I would want my kids to have all the things heterosexuals take for granted and homosexuals have to compensate for in their relationships. More than anything, I would want them in the body they feel most comfortable in.
Many liberals try to frame gay marriage as a civil rights issue, which to me is an absolute joke. Homosexuals are fighting for nominal recognition with gay marriage, not human integrity. Not being married (single people for instance) is no less dignified in society today than being married. Black folks and other minorities on the other hand fought for voting rights, criminal justice, safety, and civility. Gays have these rights already. Any claim of equivalency between the two movements is ludicrous. A similar weak equivalency was made by teachers and union clowns in Wisconsin between their protest and the Arab Spring. One group was fighting for more leverage in contract negotiations, the other for the right to walk down the street without being shot at or imprisoned. Preposterous comparisons.
The shame is that these beliefs too often fall along religious lines. I am Christian, but I really don’t think my religion plays a role in my beliefs. You shouldn’t need to be Christian to think homosexuality is a bit unnatural. The same goes for abortion. I hate the way abortion falls along religious lines too. Do you really need to believe in God to think that terminating a living fetus with lungs and a heart and a little brain is not the right thing to do? How does that not transcend religion? I’ll never get it.
Despite all the strong opinions that gay marriage and abortion might invoke, they are not the pressing issues of this country in the 2012 election cycle. But if they were, I would propose a tradeoff. Get all the Republicans to support gay marriage, and all the Democrats to support a repeal on Roe v. Wade. Because in reality, Pro-Choice people don’t want to murder, and religious folks don’t’ want to discriminate, even if each ignores these acts as “murder” or “discrimination” in the first place.
As far as the President’s statements, the guy is playing politics. He knows his very liberal base is unenthusiastic. In fact, they have been downright disappointed with him on this issue. But he stayed away from supporting gay marriage to keep independents and moderate republicans within reach. Now he has a sense that they are no longer in play, so he’s coming out. The President never ceases to amaze me on how he will say just about anything the uninformed masses want to hear. But that’s for another blog.
The thing I really don’t understand about gay marriage is why do homosexuals want to fight for marriage so badly. If they have civil rights, and can attain the rights bestowed by civil unions, then why marriage? Don’t they know that 50% of marriages end in divorce? Don’t they know that marriage kills otherwise healthy relationships? Wait until they get a taste of divorce over the next couple of decades. Then you will see gays first in line to repeal gay marriage. What better excuse not to pop the questions than, “I’m sorry honey, it’s against the law”?
Latest posts by Robert O'Hara (Posts)
- The dawn of Syrian conflict - August 29, 2013
- Of Russian resets and NSA leaks - August 12, 2013
- Too much news is good news for Mullah Omar - July 25, 2013
- Trayvon Martin, tragedy and injustice - July 14, 2013
- Republican hangover: it’s not the message, it’s the messenger - November 15, 2012
Print This Post
You ask: “The thing I really don’t understand about gay marriage is why do homosexuals want to fight for marriage so badly. ”
I don’t understand why your side is fighting so hard to keep same sex couples out of your clubhouse.
Less sanitary? Do you kiss your wife goodbye on the vagina before you leave for work in the morning? That must be the dumbest reasoning I’ve ever heard in this debate.
And salutary? As in “promoting health”? Um, ok. I’m not sure historically that gay relationships have a higher death or illness rate when you look back over thousands of years of fatal heterosexually-transmitted diseases like syphilis, not to mention women dropping like flies in childbirth until the modern age. But if you’re committed to the idea that putting your penis in the average woman is almost the same as putting it in an freshly-sterilized hyperbaric chamber, then go for it.
I’m not sure you know what side you’re on. When you say, “because I would want my kids to have all the things heterosexuals take for granted,” you may as well say, “I know it’s unfair, but my empathy ends at my children.” Other people make me uncomfortable because I find them vaguely icky, so they shouldn’t call my rights “rights” and want to have them. That’s why gay people don’t like you, Bob, and straight people like me aren’t on the bandwagon either.
I am not on the side fighting hard against it. In fact, I wrote in the blog that it was silly to amend the constitution for this. I am just not fighting FOR it. I have a political belief that marriage is not a right, and a personal belief that homosexuality is dysfunctional. That’s it, plain and simple.
Nothing against homosexuals themselves. If they had real civil rights issues, like not being able to vote, or job discrimination, I would speak out on their behalf for sure.
As far as sanitary and salutary, homosexual intimacy between female or male couples requires sodomy, which any health professional would tell you is less sanitary than conventional intercourse. To me this is a sign in nature, along with its inability to perpetuate the race, that it is indeed dysfunctional human behaviour.
I think polygamists and brother and sister couples are good people too, and can do what they want, but Im not going to endorse their marriages. Would you guys?
My empathy doesn’t end at my children. But my enthusiasm to fight for something I myself ultimately don’t believe in does…Thanks for the intelligent comments. Keep reading.
Wow…you just don’t get it, do you? Your writing [otherwise known as misinformed hatred] follows the outline from bigot’s writing 101. I would assume from your position that if it was 1959 you would agree that black and white people in love should not be able to marry either? Thank God most of us understood the meaning of freedom and changed that position. As far as gay marriage being not necessary because of civil unions…check your facts before you spread your hatred. Civil unions are state to state, not federal. My partner and I have a civil union – which means that it he or I end up in a hospital in NJ and have to decide it’s time to shut the machines off – we can decide for each other. If we were in the same situation but happened to be in North Carolina he wouldn’t even be able to accompany me into the er let alone carry out my last wishes…they would have to call my ‘next of kin’ – my 80 year old parents. I guess to you that’s fair? How about the house that we’ve shared for the past 22 years? Both of our names are on the mortage but if one of us passes away the surviving partner has to pay inheritance tax on the other’s portion of the home value. If you were informed and had done your research you would have found countless other reasons why. Heterosexual couples do not have to even think about these situations…they take these freedoms for granted. You just don’t get it…how are these two examples not rights that all Americans should have? Please go back and compare your writing to the Nazi or Klu Klux Klan propoganda from the past. I think you’ll see some similarities…the dissemintation of hatred was subtle at first. I feel bad for you, that in 2012 you still let fear of the unknown guide your thought process. I will continue to be optimistic about the future and hope for life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for all Americans. Gay, straight, black, white, bigoted and not bigoted. Be well and please hire a fact checker before you publish.
Dude, SEX is unsanitary. Gay men may engage in anal sex, but so do lots of het couples. Lesbians may never go there. It matters more how many partners you’ve had than where you put things. Good Lord, the sanitary thing is just dopey.
So, marriage is not a right? What is it, then? At the moment, it’s this thing that government sanctions and rewards for some people but not others. Right now, engaged people don’t have to pass a fertility test OR a hygiene test. So, it’s not currently about your criteria for good, clean, vanilla breeding. It’s something else. Why shouldn’t it be expanded?