I try not to get caught up in other people’s drama.1 I’m busy, there’s so little time, and I have dog poop to pick up.
That is why I have a hard time getting excited about the whole “gay rights” debate. The saga is ridiculous to me because I cannot understand why “opponents” of gay rights/marriage even care if two men or women get married and raise children.
It has nothing to do with them. No one is asking for money, any particular action, or seeking to corrupt straight children. Heck, Lesbians might even do a better job than straight moms at raising well-adjusted teens.2
The opposition to gay rights is simply a basket of ignorance. The entire saga is exhausting, and again, I have dog poop to pick up.
And although I cannot usually be bothered to care, a 2L brought this to my attention:
Pastor Tom Brock blamed twister on gays. Turns out, yep, he’s gay.
Remember when a tornado struck downtown Minneapolis last year and broke the cross atop a downtown church?
Minneapolis Pastor Tom Brock made a whole bunch of waves by suggesting that the twister was God’s retribution for the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America voting at its national convention in Minneapolis that day to take up — and pass — a resolution that allows for openly gay clergy could serve as ministers.
“The apostasy is now complete” in the ELCA, he told conservative Christian radio host David Wheaton not long afterward.
So we assume he’s going to step down. Because he’s gay, it turns out. Lavender outed him in its most recent issue.
The closeted religious man/politician is nothing new, but this story makes me wonder if that many real straight people actually care about opposing gay rights or if the bulk of this opposition is the product of a small group of closeted people trying desperately to deny their fabulousness.
I suspect that most straights have more relevant things to worry about, like picking up dog poop.
1 That is why I am a firm believer in the vogue phrase: “I don’t like that bitch, I don’t see her.”
2 They also tend to look like Justin Bieber (or La Roux) and wear fierce bermuda shorts. What else do you need?
I think you’re absolutely right: it is always closet cases who cannot accept themselves that cause the problems. Normal people are too busy with life to worry about what other people do in bed (or elsewhere)!
Closet cases are just ticked off that the out gays are getting what they want from life, but the closet cases aren’t.
But it must be so exhausting to crusade against other people in order to hide your own feelings/guilt. I need a shot of espresso just thinking about it.
But if you’re exhausted, you have a harder time acting on your eeeeeevil, unnatural impulses!
That’s their plan! It’s a conspiracy dangit.
(I struggled with how to word this comment, so please read it generously. And if you never meant to start this kind of discussion, kindly disregard!)
I’m straight, and I do care. And I’m not even that religious! But I’m not against gay rights, exactly. Let me explain…
I think marriage has a purpose. It’s not (or shouldn’t be) equal to cohabitation. It should be pretty limited – one or two per lifetime. But apart from that, what makes marriage *marriage*? Up until recent history, Western marriage was based on a bunch of Judeo-Christian concepts. See for example writings in the Bible and elsewhere comparing the man and woman in a marriage to Jesus (the boss) and Jerusalem/the church (the party submitting to authority). Then women’s rights came, and we threw a lot of that out. So that leaves me asking – what is marriage for, nowadays?
With a state no longer sanctioning religious marriages, but rather all (straight) marriages, we’ve become a little confused. Anybody can get married (to the opposite sex) for any reason. They can divorce in most states for just as paltry ground. Simply put, legal marriage doesn’t mean anything anymore. It comes with rights to the parties, but no benefit to society. The societal benefits of marriage are (off the top of my head) stability and a (usually) better arena for child-rearing.
So I see two choices. Speaking strictly in terms of legal marriages, we can refocus our marriage laws to better match the supposed purposes of legally recognized marriages. Or we can keep going on with the laws we have, which embody a long cultural tradition that is (to the detriment of some) based on religious ideas of marriage.
Assuming we should change our marriage laws (and I personally think we should), the change should be dramatic. To promote stability and child-rearing, the state should only sanction marriages with children, and it should be difficult to get out of a marriage without the old-fashioned grounds like adultery, abuse, and so on. Under this kind of an approach, when the government truly focuses on what IT gets out of marriage, then I see no reason why homosexual people should not also benefit from government recognition. But I’m not sure why the government should care about quickly dissoluble marriages with no children involved.
On the other hand, sticking with our current system means recognizing that, given its background and history, it was never really meant for homosexual people to take advantage of. And I say this as a woman, knowing full well what kind of treatment these “Christian” laws give my kind. But – especially as a law student – I can’t ignore the purpose and history of the laws. Our marriage laws are currently meant to support Christian (or pseudo-Christian) marriages. I can see why, with this background, a lot of people have trouble seeing marriage “changed.”
I appreciate the comment. Valid points!
I think a big aspect of marriage that it is an economic partnership between two people and this pooling of resources benefits society. The rules of marriage (or a civil union) just help facilitate the partnership by providing default rules, (divorce, illness, incompetency, inheritance) which mirror what most people would want anyway…and I don’t think it makes a lot of sense to exclude a subset of the population from enjoying the benefits of that partnership.
It’s like allowing some businesses to incorporate and enjoy the benefits of the corporate form but not allowing other, similar businesses, to incorporate because they are owned by different people.
Thanks for the reply.
The economic thing is important, and I think was implicit to my thinking. I should have recognized that. I see the economic benefits as being a reward for behavior that benefits society – in my thinking, stability and raising children. I hadn’t thought of resource pooling as valuable in itself. Something to think about!
(and hope you had/have/will have a fun time with Pride)
In Family law a good part of the class was focused on the economic partnership/resource pooling concept. It’s one of those things that ads up, (and I think, aside from your Trump, many average successful people tend to be the ones with the longest marriages, since divorce and being single is expensive)
…and pride was hilarious. My goodness.