Mark Simpson, a gay writer from the UK, had some interesting words to say about California’s Prop 8-a proposition CA voters passed last month to amend the CA constitution to define marriage as between a man and woman only:
Gay marriage is being presented by many gay people and liberals on both sides of the Atlantic as the touchstone of gay equality. … But not all gay people agree. This one [the author] sees gay marriage so much as a touchstone as a fetish. A largely symbolic and emotional issue that in the US threatens to undermine real, non-symbolic same-sex couple protection: civil unions bestow in effect the same legal status as marriage in several US states – including California. … Amidst all the gay gnashing of teeth about the inequality of Proposition 8, it’s worth asking: when did marriage have anything to do with equality? Respectability, certainly. Normality, possibly. Stability, hopefully. Very hopefully. But equality?
First of all, there’s something gay people and their friends need to admit to the world: gay and straight long-term relationships are generally not the same. How many heterosexual marriages are open, for example? In my experience, many if not most long term male-male relationships are very open indeed. Similarly, sex is not quite so likely to be turned into reproduction when your genitals are the same shape. Yes, some gay couples may want to have children, by adoption or other means, and that’s fine and dandy of course, but children are not a consequence of gay conjugation. Which has always been part of the appeal for some.
More fundamentally who is the “man” and who is the “wife” in a gay marriage? Unlike cross-sex couples, same-sex partnerships are partnerships between nominal equals without any biologically, divinely or even culturally determined reproductive/domestic roles.
It’s always nice to hear the opposition making the same points you do. Simpson is right. Granting “marriage” to same-sex couples is not about rights; it’s about respect. And like Elton John, he doesn’t think homosexuals need marriage. Furthermore, same-sex relationships are not the same as heterosexual relationships. They do not function the same way in society, and they are inherently different (both biologically and behaviorally). Why, then, should they be identified by the same name?
Thinking to Believe 
December 10, 2008 at 9:33 pm
I have to disagree with you. The fact that gay marriage is not considered legal means that the relationship between 2 persons of the same sex is not seen as “legal.” That opens doors to other forms of discrimination. Open relationships are very common in heterosexual relationships – it is called cheating on your spouse. Depending on what is to lose the cheated on spouse will remain in the relationship – mortgage, house, car, children; gays have nothing to hold on to. Besides, when will we ever be able to be treated with respect? Seeing gays being ridiculed or ridiculing themselves on TV does not mean the society recognizes us.
The media loves to introduce a gay character, but he is always undecided, or bi or they simply change him later in the show – ABC’s Brothers and sisters, for instance.
I don’t know about you, but I sometimes have the urge to touch my partner with some caress like every heterosexual couple does – not have sex with him, necessarily – not because I want to be equal, but because my feelings are equal. Nonetheless, I have to pass that if I am in a public place. That does not contribute to my relationship. I notice that society is more accepting of women doing it.
I don’t know about you, but I prefer to have a long-lasting relationship and grant that person at least the rights to inheritance, hospital visits, jail visits, burying me. Those are rights given by means of marriage, not by any other.
LikeLike
December 11, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Adam,
Yes, it is discrimination. But not all discrimination is bad. There is a difference between just and unjust discrimination. Unjust discrimination is treating equals unequally. Just discrimination, on the other hand, is treating unequals unequally. While both homosexual and heterosexual persons are of equal value to society, their relationships with other people are not of equal value to society. Heterosexual relationships characteristically produce children—the next generation of society—whereas homosexual relationships do not. So why should society recognize the two types of relationships as equal, if they do not function equally in society? They need not. Discriminating between the two relationships is rationally justified, regardless of what one thinks about the morality of homosex.
You are mistaken when it comes to granting hospital visitation rights and the like. Those rights are not secuarable by marriage alone. Marriage automatically secures those rights, but they can be obtained through legal means apart from marriage as well.
Jason
LikeLike
March 8, 2009 at 9:03 am
The author wrote:
“First of all, there’s something gay people and their friends need to admit to the world: gay and straight long-term relationships are generally not the same. How many heterosexual marriages are open, for example? In my experience, many if not most long term male-male relationships are very open indeed.”
I know many homosexuals and this has been true in their relationships. One friend loves to go to San Francisco and visit the bath houses together! It is NOT the same, and I have serious concerns that, all though many claim pedophilia and homosexuality have nothing to do with each other, what’s to stop two pedophiles from claiming they are gay, getting married and adopting little boys? One might answer, “that could happen with a man and a woman” but good luck finding a female pedophile willing to do such a thing!
I wonder how many real females there are in those organized pedophilia groups, that would make an interesting study.
If gay marriage passes, how hard will it be for any two men in a pedophile group to do such a thing? And the adoption agencies will be pressured to prefer gay marrieds just to avoid accusations of bigotry.
LikeLike
March 9, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Shewalksaway,
I just want to clarify that statistically speaking, most gay men only have sex with other adult men. Only a minority are pedophiles. Having said that, what you described is a very real possibility, even if it would be rare.
LikeLike
April 1, 2011 at 10:43 am
My boyfriend and I are in a strictly closed relationship, and neither of us would want to be in a relationship in which the partner would want an open one. In comparison, straight friends of ours in LTRs are in open relationships. I have met very few gay folk in open relationships and I like in the Bay Area.
Secondly, I am applying for financial aid. One of the various possible qualifying stipulations for being able to be declared independent eliminating the need for entering your parents information is to be married.
Even though I am completely financially independent, if I was in a civil union with my boyfriend, this would not be acceptable in the federal governments eyes and they would rather give their aid to married young couples who probably are financially supported by the parents and not stigmatized by them for being in a gay relationship as I am. This is simply one of many ways in which civil unions are not legislatively “equal” to marriages. It’s simply one that has personally hit home.
LikeLike
April 1, 2011 at 11:13 am
Chuck,
Should a man in a committed, polygamous relationship be given equal rights and privileges under the law as well? How about an adult brother and sister who are in love with each other and in a committed relationship?
If not, why not? What principled difference is there between these “arrangements” and your own?
Why should the government treat same-sex relationships as equal to opposite-sex relationships if same-sex relationships do not serve the same societal function as do opposite-sex relationships?
Jason
LikeLike
April 1, 2011 at 12:34 pm
Great question. And Chuck has a good point too, I think, in why would being married establish kids as independent? Ha, if one of my kids got married and had children, good grief, my credit card would be smoking.
LikeLike
April 1, 2011 at 1:56 pm
Perhaps that is a bad requirement. But the way to solve for it is not by legalizing same-sex marriage. The way to solve for it is to change the requirement. Something similar was done for hospital visitations. The old rules would not allow non-family members to visit sick loved ones, and thus same-sex partners had difficulty visiting their partners. This was often used as justification for legalizing same-sex marriage. While I agree that the policy was stupid, legalizing same-sex marriage was not necessary to solve it. Indeed, President Obama took care of the problem with one stroke of his pen. Thinking that same-sex marriage is needed to solve for some of these practical matters is like thinking one needs a bazooka to “take care of” a fly.
Jason
LikeLike
April 1, 2011 at 3:35 pm
So true.
And the unintended consequences that would result if gay marriage was legalized is overwhelming. It’s used like a club to demand entrance into our public schools to indoctrinate young kids to experiment with their non-negotiable sexuality. That it can be promoted in the face of such dire health consequences is another testiment of the depravity of our leaders in society.
LikeLike