Nick's Journal
2007-02-16 02:19:42 (UTC)

What a 'gay' initiative

i'm sure by now you've heard about the initiative looking to
be put on the november ballot in the state of washington
which would effectively annul any marriages which did not
produce a child within 3 years. the bill was drummed up by
a gay rights group looking to expose the absurdity of one of
the conservative's arguments against their having equal
marriage rights...namely the notion that marriage is an
institution primarily established to further the procreation
of mankind.
first and foremost i find this ingenious. this does the
beautiful task of drawing on the outrage of the conservative
brain and giving it more than enough air time (fox news has
screamed itself to death already).
secondly, the initiative is RIDICULOUS. even if it were to
make it to the ballot and EVEN IF it were somehow voted
through it would be absolutely mangled by the state courts
and congress for the constitutional rights it violates.
but the thing is even the group that sponsored it hopes that
it doesn't succeed, their idea was never to make this
idiotic initiative a true law, because taht would defeat
their cause even more!!! they just want to prove their point.
and they some extent.
more than likely they've just drawn more rage and ire
towards themselves for such a sophomoric low-blow, but
albeit, quite ingeniously thought-up.
as for gay marriage, i vascillated from being against it, to
being indifferent, to being for it.
i started out being against it because i was worried that it
would have an influence on children.
and as for me, the classic seinfeldian line applies to me,
"not that there's anything wrong with that", but i'm just
not into it? i don't know how to put it without sounding
homophobic. i guess i am truly apathetic towards it.
anyhow, back to marraige. the more i read about it, the
more it looks genetic and it's not like marriage is the
gateway to gays having children, for they can adopt even
without being married (i think). but anyhow, the principle
that two loving gay parents is better than one or two
straight assholes, is way too overwhelming to pretend to be
concerned with some absurd, "child will be brainwashed into
being gay" fear, which is wholly unjustified.
so then i became quite indifferent.
then i thought about it and the one issue taht started
pushing me for gay rights for marraige was simply the fact
that by them not having it, allowed them to be ostracized
from the mainstream community to one more degree.
as a parable, take the jews in 1933. their rights were
slowly stripped so that by 1943 they weren't humans and
slaughter wasn't that hard.
of course that's crassly oversimplified, but still, i tihnk
that when a group doesn't have the same rights as the
mainstream it sets them apart in a fundamental aspect and
gives them uneven footing (take slaves for example). no
matter how minute the right, i think if there isn't a
logical reason against allowing a certain group to have that
right then you can't disallow it.
so first off let's look at the opposition.
first and foremost are those who view homosexuality as
wrong, now this is all fine and good and you can view
homosexuality as an abberation all you want, but that
doesn't give you the right to withhold their right to
marriage or any other equal footing.
for example: i am disgusted by facial piercings, but that
doesn't mean taht i have the right to disallow peopple from
seeking them...which plays into the underlying logic
principle...does it hurt anyone?
secondly you have the religious argument. and this i find
somewhat compelling but completely flawed. first of all
marraige is an institution predominantly held under the wing
of religion. if you want to be blessed under such an
institution then that institution is going to judge you. the
main argument is that homosexuality isn't just something
that "we don't like" it's a sin. and then comes the part
that a lot of people don't understand. they posit the
argument of, "well don't worry about it, it's none of your
but it is! that's what religion is all about! saving the
sinner! abolishing the sin! love the sinner, hate the sin!
homosexuals are sinning by engaging in homosexual activiteis
and must be 'cured' of their sins (a la tom haggard).
be that as it may, there is not logical reason behind an
opposition to homosexuality in general. to abide by the
religious 'reasoning' you have to take prima facie that
homosexuality is "wrong". given that the main
argument from the relgious folk is that the bible says it's
wrong, doesn't really leave me with much to dispute there.
there really isn't a point upon which you can use a
counter-attack which does any good. just showing that it is
preferable to take a more logical view of it.
so taking it from a legal/libertarian standpoint let's look
at it.
homosexuality between two consenting adults is nothing worse
than heterosexuality. a lot of times people use slippery
slope arguments of, "well if we allow gay people to marry,
what next, a man and a goat? a man and a lamppost?" aside
from being horribly offensive those arguments have no merit.
one can not garner consent from a lamppost or (no matter
what you think while drunk) from a goat. simple silence is
not enough to construe consent according to our law. the
main reason of course being that sexual intercourse is such
a personal thing. our society wants to make absolutely sure
(hence statutory rape crimes with teh argument that children
don't know the magnitude of their consent).
given that it is consensual intercourse and/or a mutual
relationship, there really is nothing legally wrong with it.
some might find it morally reprhensible, but what some deem
moral doesn't necessarily make good law.
while i may not quite understand what causes one man to be
attracted to another and even if i find it morally
reprhensible because my bible tells me so, doesn't thwart
the logical conclusion that a homosexual relationship is
nothing less than a heterosexual relationship all other
things being equal.
i think that probably within my lifetime gay marriage will
be allowed (or atleast i'm holding out hope for it) as the
religiousity of society further loses it's grip and reason
prevails. in the end, it goes simply beyond what each of us
feels is "right" in our own view of life, but more to the
tune of what is fair for everyone (EVERYONE) and what is
tenable for society as a whole.
we'll see if time proves me right.