"What if straight people couldn't get married?"

I actually overheard someone asking this question, while I was standing in line at Safeway the other day. There was an "article" in one of the tabloids about how gay marriage would bring America to its knees (bad pun on purpose) if it ever became legal. The man asking the question appeared gay to me, and he was chatting with the cashier -- a straight male Christian. I assume this because he was sporting a wedding ring, plus his casual answer was: "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, so your question is ridiculous."

The gay man's face tensed up, but he didn't say anything more. However, the incident really got me thinking about the gay marriage issue, and how some straight folks seem to be clueless -- when it comes to understanding why so many gay folks are fighting for the right to legally get married.

Let's imagine (to help me make my point) a world in which straight people can't get married. A world in which gays and lesbians are casually stating, "God made Adam and Steve (or Amanda and Eve), not Adam and Eve." A world in which straight people see gays and lesbians getting married on television, in the movies, newspapers and magazines, but never any straight couples. A world in which gays and lesbians defiantly hold protests -- every time straight people fight for the right to legally get married. A world in which gays and lesbians openly hold hands and/or kiss each other in public, but straight people risk ridicule or worse, if they try to express their love for each other in the world. And throw in the Bible for good measure (pretend there are sections which clearly state that heterosexuality is an abomination, and the holy union between man and man, woman and woman -- is something which pleases God to no end).

If you are a heterosexual, how would all of this make you feel? Would it make you angry, depressed, or apathetic? Especially if the idea of straight marriage was considered a "ridiculous" one by many? I'm just curious.

--QP

 

This issue aggravates me people... it's so frustrating. How the hell could people even honestly feel they have any sort of RIGHT to abolish someone from happiness. We're all the same, we're all HUMANS. No one is above anyone else. No one people has any more of a claim to this Earth then the next. "Gays" have no reason to feel like they owe "straights" anything. So why the hell should someone feel it right to vote on an issue when the only reason the votes would win is because there are DEFINITELY a lot more straights then gays/gay rights supporters?

 

The whole issue has baffled me for years. I just don't get why gay marriage is such a heated issue. As you say: everyone has the right to find happiness in this world. So why shouldn't gay marriage be legal? I once met a lawyer dude, and he told me gay folks were being naive -- if they expected most straight folks to vote for gay marriage: That apart from the religious opposition, most heterosexuals want their children to grow up and have children. It's how folks live on, after their life on this earth is through. It's an interesting point of view. And I wonder how true it might be?

--QP

 

Even, if most heterosexuals did NOT want their children to grow up and have children, this would nonetheless, be the case. Most people are hardwired towards procreation, and procreate they will, with or without the approval of their own parents. Fearing that your children won't get married, and have children of their own, because the gay marriage became a legal possibility is just like fearing that all the beef production will come to an end because we are offering fish and crustaceans at some of our supermarkets, too.

I wish more Americans would remember the words of Thomas Jefferson in 'Notes on the State of Virginia' 1781-1785.

"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

We would be all so much better off, if everyone honestly asked himself, if any proposal on the table 'picks my pocket or breaks my leg'?

KD

 

Actually, I never said I agreed with the lawyer's point of view: I stated that it was an interesting one I had not considered, and questioned whether there might be much truth to it. For myself, I had a lover for five years. We shared an apartment together, and I paid half of the rent and utilities. We never considered having children (adoption), because we were just barely making ends meet. Also, his parents' were an active part of our lives, even though they despised homosexuals, and I was not welcome in their home.

I finally got so fed up with his mother's homophobic comments, that I told my lover that since I wasn't welcome in her home -- his mother was not welcome in mine. She got her revenge by not allowing me to attend his funeral when he died from complications due to AIDS. Also, his family "inherited" personal letters, photographs, and most of the furniture and household items we shared. If we had been legally married: there's no way in hell his biological family could have done what they did. So I can see the importance of legal marriage -- with or without children. In the eyes of the law, I was not a family member. And they took full advantage of the fact.

--QP

 

BTW, my lover's family did not resent me because their son died from AIDS: He was already HIV positive when we met, and they knew this. I am still HIV negative. They resented me because they believed homosexuality was wrong, and it's a choice. I made it clear that homosexuality was not a choice, but how certain people were born. And there's nothing wrong with it. My lack of shame was an absurd concept to them.

--QP

 

shit even if homosexuality was a choice --which it's not--- how the hell would it be anybody's business even then? and what kind of people think that they have the right to tell other people how they should live? it's complete self-righteous bullshit. it's like they have so little value to their own lives that they have to go finding it in destroying others. asserting someone's inferior in order to feel better about themselves. that's what it is.

anyway, regarding the marriage issue -- i will probably never get married, since i view marriage as a society's unlawful intrusion into an individual's life (in that it's getting itself into matters it has no business being in). but i am against anybody thinking his personal standards should be the law unto everyone else. so this situation is total BS. i have no other word for it.

but it's useless to try to explain this logic to those ppl. they are not arguing against gay marriage through some coherent rationality. they argue against it on principle. and their principles are immutable. we're gonna just have to wait till they die with their stupid religious attitudes and beliefs. well, until the majority dies out.

 

Yes, the homosexuality is a choice issue has always seemed like a silly one to me. I mean, why would anybody choose to be treated like a second class citizen? Why would anybody choose to be the target of ridicule and/or violence? Why would anyone choose to be excluded from his/her church (as is often the case, when a gay person comes out). Gay people are born, not made. And our straight parents brought us into this world. So I don't know why so many of them are against gay marriage. If I had a child, I certainly would not freak out if he/she "chose" to be straight. I'd want my child to be happy. So I'd be totally supportive.

--QP

 

Some gay and lesbian folks did flee to other countries (during the years when homosexuality was illegal), and I can understand why they opted to do so. But I've been alive long enough to see positive change happen. For example, there was a time when homosexuality was considered a form of mental illness. That eventually changed. Until the late 1960s, gay and lesbian bars were routinely raided by the police, and homosexuals were tossed in jail; many of them ultimately lost their jobs and apartments, due to their names and addresses being published in the papers. That eventually changed. So I'm optimistic that things will continue to get better. Besides, I am an American. I was born in this country. My history is here. So I'll ride the storm out.

--QP

 

Some ppl think marriage is no big deal. When I was younger I hooked up with Jim and we lived together as "roommates" for five years. No issues came up like a devastating illness where I would have no decision rights that would be automatic if we were married. Actually, we never even thought about it - content to live as all our friends either gay or str8 in those unofficial marriages of the time.

I later hooked up with Brenda and as was our subculture custom lived together as roommates for three years, then decided to get married, mostly to give us cred as live-in care givers.

A lot of gay couples who are affluent enuf get the legal documentation that protects both parties against any hostile family member in survivorship matters. Anyone can designate a health care surrogate so your partner can decide medical matters and your evil family members can't keep him away.

However, there are things in marriage that are serious and we should perhaps concentrate on the Federal instead of state level. That's where Social Security comes from and marriage affects that.

I recently started getting my accounts set up at SS (look at my age). I get full benefits if I hang out for another year. What surprised me was when the clerk told me I should apply on Brenda's SS for survivor benefits, which will be more than mine. (Brenda became an RN in the two decades we were together and started making twice as much as me). We were divorced for two years before she died, but just being married for more than 10 years I am still qualified to draw on her pension.

These financial benefits that come automatically with marriage are denied to couples whose relationship is just as valid and longstanding as those who can legally marry. So, it is a big deal and a big wrong to deny such benefits because marriage is not allowed.

 

This is an excellent point, Shale. I'm glad you mentioned it. Social Security is another reason why gay marriage should be legal. As you said: "It is a big deal and a big wrong to deny such benefits because marriage is not allowed."

Gays and lesbians pay taxes the same as everyone else. So why should any survivor be denied benefits? It's just plain wrong.

--QP

 

It reminds me of the Tears for Fears song "everbody wants to rule the world" The self rightious Jerry Fallwell mentality really is scary. How can someone dictate another persons right to happiness in light of their religion. Talk about Mahmud Amadidajad fucking taliban bullshit. This country really is in the dark ages and all because of religion mind control. Yeah, I'm pissed. Sorry worshippers, I just hate that "I believe, so you're gonna believe" WTF?

 

I've just been reading up on this, and one thing that surprised me was that here in the UK we have not legalised same-sex marriage yet! I mean, we have civil partnerships that give the same legal rights, but no marriage.

That's kind of a kick in the nuts, but then again it's probably better than nothing (although this train of though could lead to complacency, accepting whatever we get and never striving for anything more). I couldn't imagine the discrimination that happens over in the US.

let's all gay-move to the Netherlands and gay-marry

 

A lot of gay people themselves did not want it to be referred to as a "marriage". There is no difference anyway, between a civil partnership and a marriage apart from name value as far as I can tell. And most people colloquially say they are married to their partner anyway. What's the difference apart from it's legal name?

 

I don't think the Social Security Administration recognizes "domestic partners" only legally married partners.

 

But in the UK if you have a civil partnership you are classified as legally married, and you have the same rights as a man and a woman do in marriage. Only difference is it's name, not a marriage but a civil partnership. What's different there?

 

Thanks, man. I appreciate that. But the situation is getting better (ever so slowly) for gays and lesbians, so I think I'll continue to stay here. I've managed to survive so far, so I have no desire to abandon my friends and family -- even if I could afford to do so. I'll just keep looking to the future.

--QP

 

I know what you mean. And it can be very disturbing. When Matthew Shepard was murdered during the late 1990s, some of these fundamentalist Christians made it a point to show up at his memorial -- and gleefully announced that Matthew's brutal death was an act of God. And that all homosexuals deserved to die and burn in hell. They came armed with hate filled banners, and did their best to disrupt the memorial service. People like that are not speaking for God or Christ. They are Christian only in name. And their actions are sickening.

--QP

 

Gosh, you're lucky. It's totally different in America. Civil partnerships don't receive the same legal rights (here). Gay and lesbian folks can live together as partners for years, and still not be entitled to Social Security survivor benefits, health insurance, and tax breaks that straight married people get. Nice to hear that things are so much more humane in the UK. Perhaps America might follow your example? We can hope. :cheers2:

--QP

 

Yep, sad but true. I guess it's different for gay partners in the UK? If so, I fail to see why America cannot follow their example. It's encouraging to learn that other countries are more open to the idea. Again, gays and lesbians pay taxes -- so we should receive equal treatment. Anyway, I thought all men are created equal? It's a legal issue, not a moral one. At least that's how it should be logically perceived.

--QP