Equality

[etherial]

I have this friend Sean. Many of you know him. He is a tough, hard-assed, and shrewd logical thinker. Everything he believes is firmly entrenched in logic. He's also a Conservative Christian, and doesn't like "gay marriage." Needless to say, this has been a topic of debate between the two of us for some time.

A month ago, I was going to make a post about how we were debating the issue, and for the first time in a long time, I felt like I had held my ground. That was an important day for me, because I get a bit touchy when my friends and family fail to see the logic against them.

Yesterday, the issue came up in conversation again, and he conceded. So long as there is a legal institution of marriage, it has to be applied equally to all couples seeking it. Regardless as to whether or not they're dirty homo queer fags.

This is my 300th post.

Comments

[mikecap.livejournal.com]

There is hope.

Re: There is hope.

[etherial.livejournal.com]

Hope for which, exactly?

Sean is a reasonable person, unlike the more vocal opponents of Equal Marriage.

[evan712.livejournal.com]

There is solid logic behind the idea of not allowing gays to marry. Not that many opponents to gay marriage actually think it through. For thhis logic to to work you must take two items as fact.

1) Marriage is meant to be a stable framework for raising children.

2) Children need both a male and female parent to bond with (note: male/female as opposed to mother/father. I'm not pigeonholing either gender into specific roles, just that they are there to help the child identify with and understand both sexes)

If you believe those two items then there is no place for gay marriage. Of course that brings up other problems that are not being addressed, such as atrocious divorce rates.

That said, I don't have a problem with gay marriage. Marriage is no longer a framework fro raising children. It is an institutionalized way of saying "I love you," and a series of tax breaks. Plus, like the article I posted yesterday shows, it is attitude that makes the difference in raising a child. I do think that not getting enough exposure to both sexes will cause problems, but that can be taken care of with a little forethought.

[benndragon.livejournal.com]

One problem with the second arguement is the assumption that gender expression solely occurs within a given sex. Having a male and female parent made me no less a tomboy, and having two male parents is no garentee that a chik won't become a valley girl (much as we may wish it otherwise ;P). Also, there might have been a time where the second arguement would apply (I have *no* idea how one would get into some of those Victorian outfits without training), but in modern society gender does not play a particularly significant a role in one's life outside of mating. Sure, we could argue inherent vs. learned gender differences until the sun goes down, but if the differences are inherent, then it doesn't matter what gender one's parents are since one will have those inate aspects regardless. If differences aren't inherent, then there is no need to specify the gender of the parents because it doesn't determine exposure to those differences. Also, with so many people running around the chance that one will be exposed to people of both genders on a regular basis is astronomically high no matter what gender the parents are (unless the kid is purposefully shut away from the world, which is unhealthy regardless of the genders of the parents). The negatives come in where parents teach prejudice against or stereotypes about gender, but given how long women were seen as lesser when you had parents of both genders I think the gender of the parents doesn't make a damn. I mean, I'm pretty darn misogynistic and that's almost entirely because of my mother, so having a female parent hurt my interactions with other women rather than helping it.

[evan712.livejournal.com]

I wasn't referring to sexual preference or gender roles. I was relating what I have seen from friends that were raised primarily by parets of one sex. Pretty much all of them have had problems relating to people of the opposite sex. I was thinking of the humanizing aspect of close interaction with both sexes. This can be taken care of through other means, but it is practically automatic through normal familial relations. Especially in large families.

There are also plenty of other flaws that that will cause issues in relating to others. Which is one of the main reasons I have no problem with gays marrying and having kids. Anyone who has to go to a lot of trouble to have a kid obviously wants it, and thus is much more likely to strive to be a good parent.

[xevb3k.livejournal.com]

I was raised by my mother, and I get along with men much better than I get along with women... so I guess I'm an exception to that idea.

I only know one person who was raised by a gay parent. He is the only person I know who (a) was never abused or neglected as a child, (b) doesn't hate his parents, and (c) has a healthy, close relationship with his mother.

[evan712.livejournal.com]

Hmmm, you and Brynn made me think a bit more about the people I've known. All of them except one were guys, and the girl had problems with everyone socially. Maybe the tendency is more of a problem relating to women?

The main problem I have seen with guys who are raised by women, is the tendency to put women on a pedestal. An untouchable object of perfection, AKA Madonna complex. One friend is pretty much resigned to being exclusively gay (he is bi) because he can't deal with the idea of a woman debasing herself by having anything to do with him. Granted his upbringing was screwed up in other ways as well... but the same idea is there in other guys, just not to that degree.

He is the only person I know who (a) was never abused or neglected as a child, (b) doesn't hate his parents, and (c) has a healthy, close relationship with his mother.

*waves*
Now you know two people. Of course, according to most of my friends, there is something wrong with me... I'm a Republican :-P

Nope.

[etherial.livejournal.com]

Those arguments are irrelevant and false.

1) There are no legal stipulations relating children and marriage. Couples that are too old or infertile are allowed to mary.

2) It is a poorly designed species that cannot handle change. It is a ridiculous notion that children "require" male and female parents because PEOPLE DIE.

But most importantly, there is no excuse for a law that discriminates based on gender. And a law that restricts who you can marry based on your gender is WRONG.

Re: Nope.

[evan712.livejournal.com]

1) That could be considered a flaw in the law.

2) People can reproduce through rape too, but that doesn't make it ok.

sorry

[etherial.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry if my previous comment was belligerent, like I said, this is a hot button for me. The "solid logic" you mention is outdated at best, and like I said, does not apply to a legal argument.

Sean also feels that marriage is a stable framework for raising children, but he can't prove that it is, was, or even should be.

Re: sorry

[evan712.livejournal.com]

Here is a bit of proof towards the origins of marriage. According to that article it was originally completely about children and rights of succession. There is a bit in there that you will find particularly interesting, so make sure you read the "Men Who Married Men" section.

BTW, no offense was taken.

re: week

[etherial.livejournal.com]

I was already aware of everything there except the antiquity of monogamy, I had never heard of evidence pinning it before the Middle Ages.

It's astounding how many things we take for granted are artifacts of the 20th Century. Equality (for everybody), love and marriage, adolescence...