Thursday, February 18, 2010

Marriage and the gay community


It’s ridiculous to assume that a marriage between two people of the same gender would be any different than a marriage between a man and a woman. For starters all marriages are made possible only when there exists an atmosphere of love, honor, respect, trust and desire between the two parties.

Far too many conservatives believe the unions between two gay men or two women are different than those of heterosexuals; they question whether such relationships are as loving or committed or filled with the same passion, as compared to that which might exist between a man and a woman. They could not be more wrong.

As a gay man, I’m not saying our relationships are any better than those in the straight community (but they aren’t any worse either).

If you believe a marriage between two persons of the same sex is any less of a union just because THEY do not exemplify what you think a wedding party should look like, how is that any different than the opinions of those who came before who opposed interracial marriages? And these claims by some of our opponents, that the sole ‘purpose’ of marriage is for procreation is just bunk! I mean, what about all of those straight couples who are unable to have children of their own? Are their marriages any less valid just because the bride is barren or the groom is sterile? I think not. And should they really want to introduce children into the mix, they’ve the same options available to them as same-sex couples have (adoption and/or surrogacy).

Perhaps it is safe to say that ALL MARRIAGES are somehow different; that no two are exactly alike and leave it at that.

To those couples who oppose marriage between persons of the same sex, I have but one question. “Why is it of such consequence to you, what may or may not be taking place within the secular unions of other couples? Is your own marriage so fragile and at-risk that it is not unlike a simple issue of company stock? Is it any more or less valuable, depending upon the formation and/or existence of another’s union?” Because seriously, IF that is the case than the union between you and your spouse, of which you place such a tremendous level of pride could not have possibly been all that secure in the first place (just think about it).

Some argue that, through our fight to secure the right to marry we “are attacking a sacred and holy institution.” That’s such a load of bullshit! None of us is driven to marry because we want to feel as though we’ve stuck it to the church and to make such a ridiculous claim is ludicrous.

We just want to follow in the footsteps of our parents and take our own loving relationships to the next level. For somebody to question our motives for wanting to marry our loved one is no less insulting than it would be for someone to question a straight couple’s motives for marrying their partner.

For those who feel we should call our unions something besides marriage, “Why?” The institution of marriage (regardless of what you may believe) is a SECULAR institution and for the vast majority of us it is the SECULAR protections and rights that we seek. True, some couples may wish to be married within a faith-based institution —- but that is an issue between them and whatever church they would like to have conducting the ceremony (and for what it’s worth, I believe churches should have the ability to refuse such a ceremony). We aren’t trying to force anything on the churches. We’re simply trying to get the nation to move past the prejudice that has served as the framework of a wall that has prohibited same-sex couples from enjoying the same 1,138 SECULAR rights, responsibilities and benefits as all other [opposite-sex] couples have enjoyed for years now.

In closing, the union (“Marriage”) itself is SECULAR by nature; nothing more, nothing less!


Related Links:


1 comment: