1) I have heard many public and private expressions from gay and lesbian couples who are deeply committed to one another and who are and intend to remain monogamous.
And I've read that most gay couples don't expect one another to be monogamous. Which is different from most normal marriages.
Yes, they would like to have the same civil privileges as straight couples have, including insurance, the ability to visit one another in the hospital if one should be gravely ill, etc. But that doesn't mean their marriages would be a sham.
I know that many companies provide insurance & retirement coverage for unconventional partners. I think this is okay as a voluntary measure but I don't think they s/b forced to do so. Eventually, people will realize they can give bennies to friends, distant relatives, and people who simply pay them under the table for the favor and that will become common. After all, no one is gonna come around and check to see if people are screwing. As for hospital visitation, I think generally adults can allow anyone who wishes to visit them cant they? Re. inheritance of property - something else people bring up in support of gay marriage - you can generally use wills, trusts to accomplish what you want.
2) That is a real red herring. Nobody is proposing anything of the kind.
No, its not a red herring. I've had proponents of gay marriage admit they want to allow polygamy, group marriage, adoptions by groups married to one another, etc. When supporters of gay marriage SAY they support things like this: "legal recognition of "queer couples who decide to jointly create and raise a child with another queer person or couple, in two households" , why not believe them? There was a full page in the NYT not long ago on the subject:
"BEYOND GAY Marriage"
The stated goal of these prominent GAY activists is no longer merely the freedom to live as they want.
by Ryan T. Anderson
The Weekly Standard
08/17/2006
POLYGAMY? POLYAMORY? The end of marriage as we know it? For the past few years, and with increased frequency in recent months, defenders of marriage have been sounding the alarm as to the real goals of the so-called GAY "marriage" movement. In response, GAY marriage's "conservative" proponents have countered that the model of opposite-sex marriage, with its norms of monogamy, exclusivity, and permanence, could apply just as well to same-sex partners. That everything which makes a marital relationship worthwhile to heterosexual spouses, to their children, and to the state would apply to GAY couples as well. Essentially, that same-sex partners want the exact same things as straight couples. And that basic fairness requires recognition of their relationships by the government.
Defenders of marriage saw through this. Scholars like Hadley Arkes and Robert P. George noted that by rejecting the grounding foundation of marriage--the unique psychosomatic unity possible only between one man and one woman in conjugal sex--the state would lose the principled basis for refusing to recognize polygamous (one man to multiple women) or even polyamorous (multiple men to multiple women, i.e. group) marriages. For pointing this out, they were called slippery-slope reasoners, scaremongers, and bigots. After all, it was said, no one seriously argues in favor of state-sanctioned polygamy or polyamory; George and Arkes were just slandering the good name and intentions of same-sex marriage activists.
It turns out that George and Arkes's points were not slanderous, but prophetic. For now, a distinguished group of scholars, civic leaders, and LGBT activists has grasped the full implications of a retreat from the conjugal conception of marriage--and has publicly embraced those implications. These GAY-rights leaders have explicitly endorsed relationships consisting of multiple (more than two) sexual partners, and have even argued that justice requires both state recognition and universal acceptance of such relationships.
Their statement, "BEYOND GAY Marriage," was released recently as a full-page ad in the New York Times. Full of candor, the statement's mission is "to offer friends and colleagues everywhere a new vision for securing governmental and private institutional recognition of diverse kinds of partnerships, households, kinship relationships and families.">
The statement lists several examples of such relationships, among them "committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner"--that is, polygamy and polyamory.
But this is mild compared to what follows: demand for the legal recognition of "queer couples who decide to jointly create and raise a child with another queer person or couple, in two households." The language is breathtaking. Queer couples (plural) who jointly create a child? And intentionally raise the child in two (queer) households? Of course, no reference is made to the child's interests or welfare under such an arrangement--only to the fulfillment of adult desires by suitable "creations."
Put simply, the logic of "BEYOND GAY Marriage" would result in the abolition of marriage as we know it. The authors tellingly write:
<<< Marriage is not the only worthy form of family or relationship, and it should not be legally and economically privileged above all others. While we honor those for whom marriage is the most meaningful personal--for some, also a deeply spiritual--choice, we believe that many other kinds of kinship relationships, households, and families must also be accorded recognition. >>>
The stated goal of these prominent GAY activists is no longer merely the freedom to live as they want. Rather, it is to force you, your family, and the state to recognize and respect their myriad choices. The result of meeting these demands will be a culture, a legal system, and a government that considers a monogamous, exclusive, permanent sexual relationship of child-bearing and child-rearing nothing more than one among many lifestyle choices. The claim that marriage is normative for the flourishing of spouses, children, and society--not to mention any attempt to enshrine in law this unique human good--would be considered bigotry. In other words, marriage as a social institution would be destroyed.
The "BEYOND GAY Marriage" statement should not be taken lightly, for its signatories are by no means drawn exclusively from the "radical" periphery of the GAY movement. They are in many cases the mainstream voices. As Professor George then noted on the First Things website:
<<< The people putting out this statement are not fringe figures. The more than 300 signatories include feminist icon Gloria Steinem, NYU sociologist Judith Stacey, Columbia University anthropologist Elizabeth Povinelli, Georgetown law professors Robin West and Chai Feldblum, the Rev. Cecil Charles Prescod of Love Makes a Family, Inc., Yale law professor Kenji Yoshino, Princeton religion professor Cornel West, writer Barbara Ehrenreich, and Pat Clark, former executive director of the Fellowship of Reconciliation. >>>
And these leaders have done no more than to affirm the logical implications of abandoning the conjugal conception of marriage as the exclusive union of sexually complementary spouses. There is no middle way between their demands and the conjugal conception of marriage. Either every consensual sexual and familial relationship is of equal value and thus merits equal legal recognition, or else conjugal marriage represents a unique human good and thus merits state recognition and support.
.....
weeklystandard.com
Your statement about how "most supporters of gay marriage" think about the institution of marriage is based on what?
It's based on online conversations on SI mostly. Gay marriage supporters routinely attack marriage and depict in negative terms. Abuse and adultery are depicted as normal behavior for heterosexual married people instead of aberrations. Ironically, many gay marriage supporters sound downright heterophobic when discussing marriage. I can only assume they have had negative experiences which color their picture of the world.
3) I submit that you have no way of knowing what the intentions of proponents of gay marriage may be.
Sure I do. I can read and listen to their stated views. And that's what I base my opinions on. So should you.
Most people I know who support it have a "live and let live" philosophy. I don't object to people believing in whatever God or Gods they want to believe in, nor to them worshiping however they see fit to worship. I just object to people claiming that their specific religious views should be the basis for laws.
I'm okay with live and let live, but I see the gay marriage side as demanding that all of society see it their way or else - no more scouts, no more churches, no more legally sanctioned marriage, etc. |
