I've fallen off the wagon here.
August rolled in, and I thought that I should re-commit myself to one entry a day, or every two days if need be. So far, I haven't done so well...but I've got an excuse. I was away in Ottawa this long weekend, so sadly I couldn't sit and write. Even more sad, I brought my camera with me, having the intention to post some pictures, but I forgot to take it while we were hanging out in the downtown and near Parliament. So sad...
Tonight was my first uptake of the news since I left, and it surprised me to see that Ontario Member of Provincial Parliament George Smitherman got married this weekend. Mr.Smitherman is the 'first openly gay cabinet member', according to the news, and married his boyfriend of a few years on Saturday.
My first reaction was how 'normally' the news portrayed this event, which is reassuring. It said what I would hope one day people say, that he got married. Big deal.
There was no gasps of horror, or choice words to make it seem as though the marriage was a horrible thing, or a beacon of hope for homos across the country. It simply stated he got married. And I loved it.
I've thought a lot about gay marriage these days. Not so much 'gay marriage', but will I get married one day. And the simple answer is, I have no idea.
Even now that I'm coming out, I'll still admit I don't think I'm crazy about gay marriage. Shocked? Well, it seems surprising, even to me. After all, aren't all gay people supposed to want to have the option to marry their lover?
It's not that I don't agree with the idea that same-sex couples should have the same legal status as heterosexual couples do. I know everyone is the same, and deserves the same tax cuts, benefits from employers and recognition that those two people are bonded.
But the whole 'marriage' word...I just don't know if I'd want to marry a guy. To me, marriage does represent the biological commitment of two sexes to procreate. The fact that they get tax benefits or special acknowledgement doesn't really factor into that definition to me, simply because it seems to be all about the nuclear family. That is why I say I am an advocate for all couples who make the formal commitment should receive the same treatment.
I've got the nuclear family thing. A mom, and a dad, and no divorce or separation or anything to disrupt the flow of life from one generation to the next. My parents are married.
It seems to me that two gay men cannot reproduce what is the nuclear family. Of course, they can opt for a surrogate mother, or adoption, or some other means of acquiring a child, but they cannot produce one between themselves. How can they be married if the reason for marriage is to reproduce?
Now I know what you're going to say, that gay parents are great parents and there's nothing wrong with bringing a child up in a gay environment. I agree completely. Whats more, there are so many straight parents who are unfit to raise children (or reproduce at all...) that the idea their marriage is really valid is laughable. I'm definitely on side with the argument that straight families who are broken up, with one or both of the parents MIA, are not good places for children to be raised.
What bothers me about the issue, like so many others, is how dehumanized it gets. It becomes a political discussion instead of a discussion about two people. By my questioning the definition of marriage, I'm instantly labeled a right-winged evil-doer. But it has nothing to do with politics, it's all about two people. Everyone gets so bogged down with the split-second decision that someone is a homophobe, or on the other side, too liberal and pro-everything that it becomes a shouting match. Nobody bothers to step back and ask themselves what they think about the issue, opting to jump on the political bandwagon and support one side or the other.
So you see how very confusing and difficult this issue is for me to both understand and to formulate an opinion on. It's probably the one thing that I don't have a clear-cut opinion on, much less a plan of action about. There are straight families who are wholly unfit to bear and raise children. There are gay couples who would make amazing parents, giving a child a stable and loving upbringing. But does marriage mean two people living in the same tax bracket as two people in a heterosexual relationship, or the ability to, in 'perfect' scenarios, reproduce without outside aid.
I'm really lost on this. I'm all for civil unions, partnerships, whatever. I don't see them as giving gays less rights than straight couples. To me marriage is about the biological aspect of a union. There are certainly questions about equality, and probably people who would see a civil union as being less than marriage itself. I guess I'm just too optimistic about the situation. What I do know is, many people don't like gays in general and it's just a knee-jerk reaction to keep them from marrying. But I'm making my argument on the grounds that people are all as well developed as you and I are, and that the homophobic issues aren't playing a part in the argument.
So convince me otherwise. Make me believe that the definition of marriage means anyone and everyone. Teach me that gay's should be allowed to have marriage. But explain why, other than, "Just because."
And for the love of God, don't hate me because I don't see things the way you do.
8 comments:
I actually kind of agree with you. But the difference between "marriage" and "civil union" or whatnot is mostly a matter of semantics, though it's the connotations that matter I suppose.
I'd be fine if civil unions granted the same rights and benefits under the law as a marriage would, I mean, it's only fair, right?
I see your point, I used to have the same feelings. But I changed my mind.
When my country was the first to legalise gay marriage in 2001, I thought it was a lot of nonsense. Left-wing interest groups taking the equality thing to a logical but fairly useless point. I did understand that it cleared up a lot of legal problems with pensions and inheritances, which we used to have before with civil partnerships.
Having seen the happiness this option brings at first hand, I decided it was a good thing. It makes people really happy, it hurts no-one, it seems to add a sense of security and normalcy to people's lives. And it's helped to move away from the image of homosexuals scouring parking lots for sex every night.
As far as I'm concerned, it's still not for me. I can imagine marrying a girl later on, maybe in my forties or late thirties. But marrying a man, no way. I feel there's an expiry date to being gay.
I recognise this makes me complicated to live with, but so be it.
First off, shame on you, you right wing evil dooer (haha, jk). You bring up an interesting point, the main point is that discussion on topics like this is needed. Too often people seem to say there are only too camps you can be in, and you’re either in one or you’re against it. It is a stupid mentality and ultimately it is counterproductive, discussion is almost always good.
What is important is that there are two divisions of marriage. There is the political, and there is the religious. In the religious sense, I believe marriage is a religious event where you signify your love for each other before god. Now, my personal religious belief is that it does not matter what sex the people are, the point is that by being married they are signifying before their god that they intend to form a family. That does not necessarily mean having kids, but that is my opinion/belief, obviously not everyone would share that point of view.
In the political sense you have a different situation. In Canada believe it or not you actually pay less taxes if you are in a civil union than as a married couple, strange but true. Over time marriage, which by and large was mainly religious, has melded its way into politics. I think the government (Canadian) would be better off if they just changed from using civil union, and marriage too simply ‘union’. Thus leaving the religious debate out of it. Granted I’m thinking off the cuff here. Perhaps it would help restore some dignity to the word married, which thanks to climbing divorce rates (and Britney Spears) has lost its meaning.
Personally, I don’t know even if I found someone to spend my life with if I would want to be married. That would be a decision I would like to make at that time, but I would want the door to be open.
Also I believe the politician is an MPP, not an MP.
Steve, I am prolly an evil doer like yourself, just as Matt branded you! However for some other reasons that people might find antiquated.
For one, I'd like to have my kids have a biological identity that is rooted,and centred on people who they look up to as parents. I have nothing against adoption, but I'd just like my kids to have that sense that they share the same blood and genes as thier parents.Biological identity influences our earthly identity and our personas, I believe.
I'm also a little skeptical that when it comes to parenthood how two men/women would measure up against a man and a woman who are in a healthy conjugal relationship. The intagibles of the complementary natures of a man and woman and the way the dynamics of the ensuing relationship influence a child in his/her formative years may not be matched by two men or two women parents.Maybe it is. I don't know.
Unless a social epidemiology study investigates the immediately above point, I guess we'll never know. I guess I put too much faith in science :)
Shame on me for saying he was an MP...he is indeed an MPP. As a politics minor, I do indeed know that, but I was so busy getting to the meat of it that I didn't go back and proofread. Apologies.
Why has nobody trashed me yet!? I thought people would have slit my e-throat by now...unless they just all deleted me from their bookmarks.
Seriously though, I'm interested in being persuaded that gays should 'marry' and not simply have a union.
Steve,
Marriage is something done by "the church". All marriages have to be offically sanctioned by "the government", they become "official unions" in the eye of the state. This is for tax, inheritance, legal ability, etc. So if "gays" are allowed "official unions" they then obtain what should be most important to them. Once this is done they can always find a "gay friendly" church to bless their union, which really is all the marriage is anyway.
Everyone should have the ability to protect what is their's and have protection for their "chosen" partner. The idea that a life partner is excluded from a funeral because "the family" doesn't agree with his lifestyle is ludicrous.
We all deserve dignity.
Mark
To me, marriage is a sign of love and commitment to one another. Sure, the tax breaks can't hurt, but then, I don't think most marriages are based first and foremost on finances. "Will you marry me to benefit our finances?" or "Will you marry me because we love each other?" Hmm. I don't even know for sure why married couples get tax breaks. Is it to prepare the way for having children, to make it easy to get set up, having to pay less out? That makes sense.
So if gay people love each other and want to make that commitment, the best answer, IMO, is "why not?" despite it not being a very good convincing point. Sorry. Well, sure, ok, I see your point. You can do it under a civil union. Yeah, you can. Sure. Why not a marriage though? Why not a civil union though? It's just a naaaame.
If we're going to give it different names, it's either because gay and straight marriage *is* different, because the people who name it *say* it's different, or just because that's how it's worked out and nobody's really too fussed either way.
So, down to what you're really talking about, I think...
To me, keeping "marriage" defined as "man and woman", or even as "part of a nuclear family" makes no sense to me, given how much the shape of marriage and families is changing amongst straight people alone. Especially among straight people. Divorce is common. Remarriage is far from unheard of. I understand where you're coming from. My (close) family is the same. It does feels right. We're lucky. But...
I swear I've rewritten this comment 987987987 times (this is my standard "loads" number for anything online) because I just don't know how to answer you.
You've got the same view as most people this would be argued against, that gay marriage isn't the same as straight marriage and shouldn't be considered as such, but we know this isn't because you're against us.
I just don't see gay and straight things as being so different. Maybe it's a closet thing? Maybe I'll change my mind when I come out properly. *Some* things are always going to be different for homosexual couples than for heterosexual couples, but that goes without saying. Having written that, I'm reminded of "It's not Adam and Steve" as some people say. My point is, just because some things are different on one level, it doesn't mean that they can't be the same on a different level. But that's obvious. I suppose what I'm getting at is that I just don't see marriage as how you see it. And if you consider everyone to be equal and of our mindset that gay couples aren't a bad thing etc. etc. then it isn't an issue that they have different names.
I don't hate you. I don't even visualise myself "marrying" a man either. But then I don't think I really see myself in any relationship. I wouldn't know how to visualise it. Girls (according to films, at least... I've never heard any female friends of mine talk to me about this) apparently have visions all the way from childhood of having big weddings? Good for them, if it's true, but I (boy) have never really had that. And besides that, I barely know any gay people, let alone gay couples, let alone married gay couples. It's not easy to imagine things you've never seen before. That's what I'd be inclined to put any reservations about calling gay marriage 'marriage' down to?
I hope any of that makes sense?
Post a Comment