Linda,
Of course you should be able to speak freely. Everyone should. When I say "impose your beliefs on me," I do not mean, "talk about them so that I am forced to hear." I mean, "make them into law so that I am forced to obey them."
That is what I believe you are doing, when you oppose my right to marriage because of your beliefs.
Key phrases here: My right. Your beliefs.
That's a bit of an imposition.
Julie,
I'm curious, now -- are you are someone, like Aineo, who has experienced homosexual attraction? Otherwise, I'd really like to know why you think you should be explaining it. I am homosexual. Do you think I am "misinformed" as to the nature of my feelings?
I am not primarily attracted to women's breasts. I am primarily attracted to women. Now, women generally do have breasts; it's one of the things that differentiates them from men. So I do find them attractive... but then, I think most straight men would say the same.
And "breasts and curves" are something just about every woman has. I'm not attracted to most women, nevermind all. Introduce me to a quirky-artsy-geeky sort, someone who reads, who thinks, who creates... that's my "type." A pair of glasses catches my eye before a pair of breasts. It's subconscious association: Anyone can have bad eyesight, but geeky people are less likely to have contacts. Ergo, girls in glasses are cute.
But I've had crushes on women on the basis of their writing, with not a clue as to what they might look like. And I'm pretty sure that when I fall in love, it will be with a person, not with her body.
Your points:
1) Stereotypes -- even if they are based on valid generalizations -- are not a good basis for discrimination. For example, "black people are less likely to be college-educated than white people" may be a valid generalization, but it would not justify an employer's discrimination on the basis of race.
There are gay men in committed, monogamous relationships. And those are the sort of men who are going to be interested in marriage. Would you deny it to them because other gay men are sleeping around? (Not to mention denying it to those of us gay folk who are not men...)
2) Last time I looked up divorce statistics, you could pretty much say this about heterosexuals, too. Should we abolish marriage altogether? And yes, divorce can be messy. And the legal system which sometimes has to sort it out is financed by taxpayers like you... and me. And many other gay people who presently get no benefit from it.
3) Gay couples already raise children. You may be against it -- and I can understand that; personally, I sometimes wish fundamentalist Christians wouldn't raise children -- but it's not your call. If it's any reassurance, there are a number of studies which indicate that gay couples do as good a job of parenting as straight couples do.
Aineo,
What you are imposing on me is a minority group doing an endrun around the consitution and a government of the people, by the people and for the people.
As of now, I don't see where "marriage is a union between one man and one woman" is in the Constitution, although I know some people would like to put it there. But as of now, I think the Supreme Court is exactly where this should be decided -- that's where it was decided the last time some people wanted to exclude other people from marrying.
Shall we credit interracial marriage to "a liberal court system that Congress was afraid to control?" Should the Constitution (which, if I remember right, doesn't mention marriage in
any context) have been amended to read "and black people shall have the right to marry white people, and vice versa?"
Yes, your right to
hold your beliefs -- and to express them -- is not limited. However, when you said
I wanted to impose on your beliefs, I took that to mean that you felt your rights went further than that. If my right to marriage would impose on them, then they would have to. I wasn't sure to where, exactly, so I think my attempt to respond was less clear than it could have been.
I will never try to limit your right to lobby for your beliefs. Your right to lobby is inviolable, and your
motivation has no effect on that right. I'm not saying you can't, I'm saying you
shouldn't... and that your success would be legalized discrimination, while mine would be equality.
Which you say you're in favor of. Equal opportunity under the law. Freedom from economic discrimination. (If we can't get married, we may pay lawyers to approximate it... or suffer greater financial hardship if we
don't.) Respect, even -- how about the respect to
not tell me I shouldn't get married because
other gay people are promiscuous, or because
your religion says I'll be damned?
But setting this one issue aside... you do support equality. You
are tolerant. And that's what I don't quite get. As I pointed out before: The Roman Empire was
as tolerant of homosexuality as we are, today. Not more tolerant. No gay marriage. And they still fell.
Do you see where I'm going with this now? If tolerance of homosexuality is the last sign before the fall of empires, why are you merely drawing the line at "redefining marriage"? Why aren't working to
undo the damage to society you did as a member of the gay liberation front?
Or to look at it from a different perspective... if you were
then who you are
now, would you have supported them... or opposed them?