« Don’t feed the geese | Main | Stem-cell research »

March 12, 2009

Support for same-sex marriage

I can’t imagine that a simpler, more succinct and logical argument could be made for the absurdity of the opposition to gay and lesbian marriage than that of Tina Morrison’s (3/7, Opinion, “Here’s the real threat: Bigotry”).

She expressed thoughts I have always held and often wanted to put to paper but was never quite able to effectively express. The column should be required reading for every person who supports denying gays and lesbians this choice. In my opinion, the common-sense arguments she makes for her position are irrefutable.

For many years, my neighbors were a gay couple. I remain close friends with them. They are two of the nicest, most thoughtful people I have ever met. They’ve been together for nearly 30 years, far longer than virtually any of the heterosexual couples I know.

As Ms. Morrison so eloquently writes, how would their being able to marry, if they chose, possibly harm anyone?

Larry M. Brummet
Kansas City

Comments

Mary Claire

Jack - oh I see, you know what I meant more than I know what I meant. Right.

Sweetie, do you know what objective means? I don't think you do. All of those citations are from people or groups with a vested interest in that particular outcome.

Their cause or assertion is supported if gay people can turn straight, and so voila! they parade around their examples of success. That is not objective or credible.

That big list of associations I gave? Not those are objective, credible institutions with nothing whatsoever to gain either way. See the difference?

I still have yet to see one example of a straight person describing the day they "chose" to be straight. Hmm, I wonder why that is?

How about this Jack: do you believe if a straight person wanted to they could become gay? Let's say they have never had a single thought about sex with the same gender. If they chose to, do you believe they can create those feelings and change their sexual orientation?

Mary Claire

Sorry everyone, posted this to the wrong blog! -Mary

Mary Claire

Dave, I have no personal interest in polygamy or the right of people to practice it. I can see where someone might connect marriage equality for gay people and marriage equality for polygamists if you're the type to think changing one thing will lead to changing everything, but I don't think that way.

Marrying multiple people is not currently legal and I don't seek to change that. I've never really thought about it and don't know what the issues are. I trust that people who do have a vested interest in that can fight their own fight if they have the desire to, but for now that's not the issue at hand. Did I answer your question?

How am I supposed to know what Rosa Parks would have fought for? What's your point? You seem to try very hard to cloud what's being talked about with things that are not relevant.

The only common thread I can see (which you seem to be trying to make into a mountain of distraction) are that gay rights and racial minority rights are both civil rights movements. You have no disagreement with me there.

JUNGLEJACK

Mary - I had more links, but I guess the site only allows so many. Multiple times my entire message was erased when I tried to post it (I know what you're thinking: "Good riddance").

...sometimes computers seem like they're just TRYING to piss you off.

JUNGLEJACK

Mary - don't try and backtrack. You obviously compared blacks living in slavery to gays not able to acquire cheap and easy access to marriage rights - which is the subject of the letter. That was an egregious overstatement of your position.


"And I'm still waiting for a citation from the plethora of credible examples that must surely exist of straight people describing their process of choosing heterosexuality over homosexuality."


...well, here's more examples, including personal testimonies. But since they disagree with you I'm sure you won't find them "credible".


http://www.narth.com/docs/repair.html

http://www.gaytostraight.org/RichardCohenStory.asp

http://www.healinghomosexuality.com/testimonials.html

http://www.peoplecanchange.com/About_Us.htm

Mary Claire

Finally Jack, did you even read that last link you sent?? It was based on 45-minute phone interviews with people, and "43% of the sample had been referred by ex-gay ministries and another 23% were referred by religious groups that condemn homosexuality."

Do you know what 'objective' and 'credible' mean?

Not to mention you had to dig all the way back to May 2001 just to find this one pathetic example to make your point? Come on.

No objective, credible authority supports your view. Not the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association or the American Psychoanalytic Association.

And I'm still waiting for a citation from the plethora of credible examples that must surely exist of straight people describing their process of choosing heterosexuality over homosexuality.

Mary Claire

JACK, those first two posts on this blog were not mine. Maybe you can respond to things I say when you direct comments to me, and to what other people say by addressing them separately?

Mary Claire

"Yes, my dear, I'm putting discrimination against gays on the exact same level as discrimination against blacks:"

I believe the comparison you brought up was to slavery - which is a ridiculous argument.

JACK - try to follow along. If you look at my original comment:

"As for the status quo, I'm sure a majority of people favored keeping slavery the status quo prior to the 1860s too but that doesn't make it right."

...my point was that just because something has existed for a time does not make it right. Slavery, for example was considered by a majority to be acceptable until we corrected that. Had we placed almighty importance on retaining the "status quo" in American society we might never have corrected that.

The 1860s was when slavery ended, a turning point in the way our country treated black people and the beginning of finally ending legal racial discrimination.

Hence the black/gay civil rights movement comparisons out there.

Are you with me now?

Obviously I am aware that the institution of slavery is something different from a variance in sexual orientation. Am I going to have to break everything I say down this small before you can stay on track?

JUNGLEJACK

Mary - first of all, the link was easy to find with a simple google search. I thought it might fly with you since it wasn't on a religious site or about a religious conversion or revelation. Of those type (religious) I have heard multiple accounts. I had a local one saved to my email that appeared on this blog just in case this topic came up again, but thanks to MSN.com all my emails have been erased - that'll teach me to pay for an email service.

Maybe you will find this other easy to find link acceptable (though I doubt you will):

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20010509/ctvnews88910

"Yes, my dear, I'm putting discrimination against gays on the exact same level as discrimination against blacks:"

I believe the comparison you brought up was to slavery - which is a ridiculous argument.

"Also, why do you keep bringing up the church?"

...um, the first two posts on this blog seemed to be laying every perceived evil in the lap of the church. I was just reminding people that the religious "kookdom" could not be responsible for the large wins at the ballot box on this issue. Some of your own dedicated Democrats must be voting to keep marriage how it is currently defined.

Mary Claire

Jack, did you write that article, the one you sent the link to? It would explain a lot.

If not, how did you come across it?

Mary Claire

Jack, gay men can get woemn pregnant through artificial insemination.

Also, why do you keep bringing up the church? You're posted several things that insinuate I'm attacking a church or blaming "religious kooks" but I'm not so what are you talking about?

Yes, my dear, I'm putting discrimination against gays on the exact same level as discrimination against blacks: discrimination. As in: denying a group of Americans equal rights and protections under the law based on a part of their identity they can not change. Not that complicated.

As for that link, I doubt the person who wrote it is even gay. A few phrases give it away. Even if I'm wrong, do you really hang your hat on one anonymous written essay on the internet? You base a belief that sexual orientation is a choice on this??? Come on.

Can you find me another one: from a heterosexual person describing the moment in their life when after careful consideration of options they "chose" to be heterosexual?

Your argument don't hold water.

JUNGLEJACK

"You dismiss the whole topic as petty nonsense but yet apparently it isn't since millions are spent by churches to fight it."

... not by MY church.

churd

You really are incapable of reading the whole argument. I have been arguing that it is more than the sexual act for the last three posts. You see 'Most men can get themselves to have sex with anyone.' and you jump in with it being a personal choice. You completely disregard everything that I said that implies it is more. As long as you can narrow the whole topic into a simple urge like alcoholism you say it something that with enough will power it can be overcome..like it is a disease.

You dismiss the whole topic as petty nonsense but yet apparently it isn't since millions are spent by churches to fight it.

JUNGLEJACK

churd - you sure claim to know a lot about my "simplistic world view".
I refer to the man in the link as liberal because he seems to have disdain for conservative institutions and ideas.
Like me, he has lost patience with those on his side for clamoring over minor issues.
I understand that you have defined my whole existence to your satisfaction in your mind and dismiss any opinion I may have out-of-hand. I thought that the link might give you a new angle - but it's you who can't see beyond your own nose.

I still don't see how I took this out of context:
"Most men can get themselves to have sex with anyone."
If that's true, then it's all a matter of personal choice.

Maybe the whole problem stems from something else in your last post. If you're looking for a sexual act to be "something you can base a life time relationship on" then you will always be disappointed.

churd

I should have realized when talking to someone who has to have their most important book divided into book, chapter, and verse so that you can point to the one line to state your whole argument you would take something completely out of context.

Yes I said it is possible for a gay man to have sex with a women. I would probably GUESS that many of the gay men of my generation have, since it was the expected thing to do. I would also say that in my case that while it was to completion it was neither enjoyable nor fulfilling for either party, and definitely not something to base a life time relationship on. I would also say that since there is a market for blow up dolls that doesn't mean they would provide the bases for a good relationship either.


Also the guy in your example. Considering he criticizes the liberal left idea of homosexuality and praises the conservative right view..I don't think he is a liberal on this topic. I know in your simplistic world you are either one or the other.

JUNGLEJACK

"Most men can get themselves to have sex with anyone."

... churd admitting sexual choice.

"...your link ...was a piss poor example of reason to believe that being gay is a choice."

... that was just one example. I thought it may carry more weight seeing as how it is from a committed homosexual.

"I'm sorry who was discussing using Congressional sessions to amend the definition of marriage...did I miss that in the original article, posting, or any of the resulting responses?"

... excuse me for trying to give you some context for my opinion. But isn't this thread about gay marriage? I think that mentioning a possible Constitutional amendment defining marriage just might be germane to the conversation.

churd

'churd - how can a gay man "produce children" with a woman if he has absolutely no sexual attraction to her? ... just wondering.' -- JungleJack

There are lots of children out there that have been fathered by gay men. Most men can get themselves to have sex with anyone. Doesn't mean they are sexually attracted or want to spend their lives with them.

And I didn't blame your link on the religious right. I implied that it was a piss poor example of reason to believe that being gay is a choice. Is that not the purpose to which you posted it? Did you not post it to Mary's assertion that being gay is not something that someone chooses to rebel against society? Was it not in the paragraph where I was talking about being gay not being a choice? Did I mention that it was written by the religious right? Didn't think so.

I'm sorry who was discussing using Congressional sessions to amend the definition of marriage...did I miss that in the original article, posting, or any of the resulting responses? No?

Just curious, considering I have yet to see a time when there are not a bunch of issues that people consider more important, at what point do the rights of a segment of the population in the United States become important? You know the country that claims 'All People are Created Equal' and all that crap.

JUNGLEJACK

churd - how can a gay man "produce children" with a woman if he has absolutely no sexual attraction to her? ... just wondering.

BTW - if you have a problem with the link I posted don't blame the religious right - the man is obviously a left wing homosexual.

And yes, this issue seems pretty petty in this day and age when we have REAL issues with which to deal. That's why I'm against wasting Congressional sessions by writing a Constitutional amendment defining marriage.
As with abortion, my stance is the same - no federal involvement, let the states decide.


churd

Mary and mike,

I don't know why you are continuing to argue this with JungleJack or others like him. His arguments have always been overly simplistic and completely wrong.

He equates being gay to alcoholism, drug abuse, theft, and pedophilia, a desire that with enough will power can be overcome. But completely misses the point that separate from the above which harm either the individual or others there is no harm done to anyone in a gay relationship. That there is no reason other than other people are uncomfortable with it and yes a lot of Christians vilify gays, for anyone to force themselves to be straight. And yes there are a lot of gay people living heterosexual lives, and a lot of them go out and cruise bathrooms and parks looking for sex. Haggard, Larry Craig, Foley anyone?

He uses as an example for it being a choice an opinion piece of someone who believes that knowing one is gay from childhood is simply a boys desire to play with dolls and wear his mother's dresses (like that was every gay boys dream), or that they were misfits, shy, or loners. Gee I knew I was gay at 12 because I was attracted to other boys and not girls...still liked sports, fishing, and camping, etc and no desire to try my sisters panties. No being gay is not a choice. Yes one can choose to pretend to be straight and get married to a person of the opposite sex and produce children and all the other things that go with that (which involves a lot of lies to ones self and the ones you supposedly profess to love). One can choose to live a lonely, celibate life. But why should anyone have to choose those things because it makes others more comfortable.

He has argued in the past that since he spent thousands on his marriage ceremony then it should be alright for a gay couple to spend thousands on legal fees to try and gain even a fraction of the rights enjoyed by married people for a $40 marriage license. When in fact many of those rights are completely out of reach except through marriage.
http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf

He argues that 75% of population voted for the marriage ban. Sorry, but in Kansas that was 75% of 6% of the registered voters who bothered to vote in that election. And yes all the states where there was a ballot on gay marriage bans they have won overwhelmingly (except in Arizona in 2006). I would argue that all those elections were won by feeding on people's fear that if gays can marry then they are going to corrupt your children, destroy your marriage, and interfere with someones right to be a Christian. And once again as it was said earlier in this thread. What other minority group has ever had to win a majority approval to enjoy any of the rights they enjoy now? Women voters? Black voters? Multi-racial married couples? De-segregated schools?

He says this whole argument is petty, but then again after hearing all the arguments against gay marriage it's not the ones who are for that are being petty.

 
About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright