Marriage is for Lovers

My wife and I have been married for 20 years. One man, one woman, works for us. Perhaps I just have a lot of vasopressin coursing through my veins. Whatever. In recent years, people have been trying to convince the masses in the U.S. that if we allow homosexual marriage, it will somehow weaken either my marriage or the institution of marriage. Bullshit!!

If anyone’s marriage is in such poor shape that seeing a happy lesbian or gay couple is going to weaken it, get a divorce now. Your marriage is already gone. And, one of you is probably a latent homosexual or bisexual. There’s nothing wrong with that. Get in touch with your own sexuality and move on.

Life is difficult enough for everyone. If someone has found someone else with whom they wish to spend the rest of their life, someone who makes them truly happy, that is a beautiful thing and to be encouraged.

Oh no!! But, what about any children they may choose to raise?! I am not a parent. My wife and I have decided to give our children the greatest gift of all, not having to deal with the world in its present and deteriorating state. However, I would strongly state that nothing screws up a kid like being raised in a non-loving home. Nothing gets a kid off to a great start like being raised in a loving and supporting home. Could anything be more important than that?

Further, there is a real human rights issue here. Marriage isn’t just a label for living together. Marriage conveys many rights in our society. To deny these rights due to one’s sexuality is truly unconscionable. If you are a heterosexual, imagine yourself on the other side of this debate. Imagine that you and your beloved no longer have any of the following partial list:

  1. Hospital visitation – Often at the end of one’s life, hospital rules regarding visitation are very different for a spouse than for friends, lovers, and even other close family members.
  2. Next of Kinship – I may not be describing this properly from a legal standpoint. A spouse is one’s closest relative. This is true in both law and actual fact. Who knows every time you wake up coughing in the middle of the night? Who knows your real thoughts and wishes for what should happen if your brainwaves stop? If you have no living will, the next of kin will make the decision. Many people have very different views on this from their other close family but are likely to share them or at least make them known to their spouses.
  3. Next of Kinship, take 2 – When one dies intestate (without a will), the closest family member inherits the estate. This is always the spouse first.
  4. Health Insurance – If only one member of a marriage is working, the worker’s job will likely allow them to include their spouse on their health insurance policy. I do believe some progress is being made here for coverage of a life partner. However, the issue goes away immediately if we call this marriage.
  5. Adoption – It is easier for a married couple to adopt. As there are many children who are unwanted, having a larger pool of potential adopters can only be a good thing, especially if you agree with my point about being raised in a loving home.

I strongly believe that any people that get together in love and want to commit themselves in marriage should be allowed to do so as one of our inalienable rights.

I’m not sure how many people will notice that I did not specify that there be only two people. As I stated above, one man one woman works for me. However, as long as it is not sex-biased, as in the case of Mormon men wanting to be allowed to have multiple wives, but not allowing Mormon women to have multiple husbands, I have no problem with allowing more than two people to marry. The plural of spouse may be spice.

Perhaps I get too much of this from reading Heinlein (Stranger in a Strange Land, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, etc.). However, keep in mind, that if a stable family is the goal, more spice provide more stability for raising the children, as there is less chance that the children will be orphaned. In particular, the idea of line marriages, as described in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, would provide incredible stability by creating a potentially immortal marriage.

Allowing all types of marriages would truly take the government out of our bedrooms. I don’t know about you, but the thought of W in my bedroom is about as off-putting as it gets.

I’m sure there are many other such issues. Please feel free to post them here.

Most importantly to me though, please explain how anyone else’s marriage is supposed to have an effect on mine.

Advertisements

26 Responses to Marriage is for Lovers

  1. jonolan says:

    LOL! The plural of spouse is heartburn! I know I have to “wives” and it’s a bit too spicy when it comes time for the arguing. Aside from that I agree with you mostly. The homosexuals raising children part I’m ambivalent on; there are no studies that prove that’s it’s worse, but also none that prove that it isn’t.

  2. mikkelina says:

    very well said! I’ve always found it to be the biggest joke in the world when I hear insecure and frightened people say that homosexual/lesbian marriage will affect the meaning and uniqueness of the word “marriage”. Or when they say: what will come next?
    As you say: bullshit! (and I am a woman married to a man…doesn’t bother me one bit).
    It all goes back to education and upbringing.

  3. Misanthropic Scott says:

    Hi jonolan,

    I did a quick search and came up with the following articles. I personally got all I needed from the abstracts.

    OK, I have to admit, if they had contradicted my preconceived notion, I probably would have wanted to read them in full. But they don’t. I’m human, what can I say? These state clearly in the abstract that they found no unusual psychological effects of having same sex parents.

    If you have more doubts, you may want to read the articles in their entirety.

    http://tinyurl.com/2yrgjx
    http://tinyurl.com/2hhdmq

    If you have other studies from peer reviewed journals that contradict this, I’d be willing to read and discuss them.

  4. Misanthropic Scott says:

    mikkelina,

    It all goes back to education and upbringing.

    And, most often and especially religion.

  5. jonolan says:

    Misanthropic Scott,

    The abstracts look interesting. I’ll need to read the whole texts of both reports before I could formulate an opinion on the comprehensiveness of their approach and the validity of their findings. Frankly, I probably won’t bother; as I said I’m ambivalent not opposed so am willing to nod at the abstracts and lean towards favor until definitive proof to the contrary arises.

    jonolan

  6. Hugh says:

    I fully support this measure!

    New initiative: No children? Then no marriage:
    http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/302553_initiative06.html?source=mypi

  7. Misanthropic Scott says:

    Hugh must be joking!! What a nasty piece of crap that legislation is. The state has an interest in reducing birth rate. They’re just using the wrong economic indicators, probably something like the totally fucking gross domest-ick product.

    If they were to look at real indicators, they’d see that their constituents lead much better lives if the population falls.

  8. jonolan says:

    LOL! Crazy selfish activistas wasting the taxpayers dollars and the legislature’s time by floating bills and suchlike that are just meant to inflame people. Someday the LGBT community will earn to stop making a mockery of themselves.

  9. Misanthropic Scott says:

    jonolan,

    I don’t understand your comment. I assume that by “[c]razy selfish activistas wasting the taxpayers dollars and the legislature’s time by floating bills” you mean the right wing nuts attempting to pass a federal law stating that marriage always means one man and one woman.

    However, then you state that somehow the LBGT community is making a mockery of themselves. I strongly disagree. I think they have done a highly admirable job of getting out of the closet and beginning to get some of the rights that we all deserve regardless of our sexuality.

    (tangent)
    Further, I hope that the non-theist community can follow the lead and mount a similarly effective campaign against the discrimination and open disrespect and hatred with which non-theists are viewed today. I am hopeful that The OUT Campaign to which I linked in my sidebar will be a help.
    (/tangent)

  10. jonolan says:

    Misanthropic Scott,

    My bad – I should have added more referents. I was commenting on the LGBT activists that draft and submit acts / bills as frivolous as Initiative 957 which Hugh “endorses.

    Political street theater almost always makes a mockery of the people who engage in it. It is not the proper way to overturn legislation; you shouldn’t waste people’s time and money with ridiculous legislation that is proposed for frivolous or conniving reasons.

    I don’t think of homosexuality in a right vs. wrong manner, but I do think of political actions in such a light.

  11. Misanthropic Scott says:

    jonolan,

    Well, the issue I have with your statements is that you don’t discuss the way in which you believe that people should fight against such atrocities as the Federal Marriage Amendment

    Without political activists proposing counter legislation, what would you do about the fact that there are many people in this god infested country attempting to legislate their beliefs on others?

  12. jonolan says:

    Misanthropic Scott,

    I am not a professional activist or legislature, nor a PR flack; I don’t have high success probability answers for how to fight an amendment. My first thought would be to review the methods used by the Mormons to derail the Equal Rights Amendment – but you need a large, disciplined constituency for those methods.

    I do know right from wrong though, and am firmly convince that the sort of behavior showcased by Initiative 957 is reprehensible. To clarify further – I think it’s wrong to propose legislation for no purpose other than to cause dissent or to set precedences in order to weaken later court decisions.

  13. Misanthropic Scott says:

    Initiative 957 appears to have been a response to a truly stupid court ruling that stated that the state’s interest in marriage was for the purpose of reproduction. This horribly flawed logic cannot be allowed to set legal precedent. I am not a lawyer and cannot comment on the available options for fighting such a precedent. However, it must be fought. If you want to complain about laws that serve no other purpose than to create dissent, you should cite the original ruling rather than this initiative as it was clearly also in that category but was actually issued by a court of law.

  14. stacy says:

    Hi Scott,
    I found you via a link from a link…you know how it goes.
    I love this post so much. I’m with the group at the beginning of your post…the ones who were married but not lovers. I got out. I pondered all those questions, and realized what you said, you can’t raise a family in an unhappy home. My mom tried that and it sincerely sucked. I’m much happier now, and much more whole.
    Additionally I have a couple of friends who are homosexual males and have adopted, but had to go to a foreign country to do so. They are great parents, truly, because they have a home filled with love and they’re happy with who they are. If only we could all just be happy that people are happy.

    Look forward to reading more of your writing,
    Stacy

  15. Misanthropic Scott says:

    Thanks Stacy. I’m glad to have at least some of my thoughts on the subject confirmed.

    If only we could all just be happy that people are happy.

    What a beautiful thought!!

  16. bobbo says:

    Several related and less related issues.

    Does same sex marriage hurt the kiddies?—only if growing up more tolerant of same sex marriage is a bad idea.

    Same sex adoption–is it really better to let kiddies rot away in paid for foster parent program than get adopted by loving same sex couples?—only if growing up more tolerant of same sex marriage is a bad idea.

    Would same sex marriage law harm the institution of marriage?–How could it? Can anyone any give a hypothetical harm that should be legislatively protected? One of the most pure rhetorical positions I have ever seen.

    Yes, “in the name of humanity” we are only here for a short time. WE should not put obstacles in OUR own path to what happiness we can find. LEAVE OTHER PEOPLE ALONE, and maybe they will leave you alone? ((But probably not?))

    I have ONE reason against same sex marriage. Language. Words gain their power from making distinctions. I never like seeing concepts combined into already existing words. So, marriage has traditionally meant one man, one woman. Thats why Mormon marriage is called polygamy, etc, its not “marriage” as defined.

    Call it civil union with exactly all the marriage rights and I have no problem. Call it “Marriage subcase One” and I’m ok. I’m actually ok if you call it marriage, but it affects the clarity of the language.

    Very related–the whole idea of “Marriage” is a religious concept. The STATE has always been involved in legislating civil unions and that is all they should be doing. After the license is secured for the civil union ((confusiningly usually called a marriage license)) you can independently before or after get married in whatever ceremony/religion you wish per their rules.

  17. Misanthropic Scott says:

    bobbo,

    Morally, I think we’re in complete agreement. Lexically, I’d have to disagree. Mormons do call their polygyny (not the more general polygamy because they don’t allow polyandry) marriage. Polygamy is the general term for more than one spouse, or more accurately a marriage of more than two people. Monogamy is the comparable term for exactly two spouses in a marriage.

    So, let’s call a marriage a marriage. People are already used to a marriage by a justice of the peace. Let’s continue to call it what people always have. Civil union sounds second rate, even if it conveys the same rights. The definitions I see on dictionary.com do not show any consensus for marriage solely being religious. In fact, I didn’t see a single one that specified religious only.

    Here’s the best def I found for polygamy:

    Merriam-Webster’s Medical Dictionary – Cite This Source – Share This
    Main Entry: po·lyg·a·my
    Pronunciation: -mE
    Function: noun
    Inflected Form: plural -mies
    : marriage in which a spouse of either sex may have more than one mate at the same time —compare POLYANDRY, POLYGYNY

  18. bobbo says:

    Scott – Right you are. Should have been more specific.

    I don’t think my point regarding civil unions would be proved/disproved by popular culture sources – – – but how many people actually think (or emotionally “feel”) they are “married” by getting the license? And what percentage of people are married by religious authorities rather than judges or ships captains? Side point not worth the candle–except in demarcing what the role of government vs religion really is. Division of property/custody rights vs love, honor, respect? Sounds like civil issues in the first case, and moral issues in the latter?

    I admire your constant reference to “sources.” More of that would keep more of us on the straight and narrow?

  19. Misanthropic Scott says:

    bobbo,

    As long as it’s the same word for all life partnerships, I’m OK with any term. I suspect that in common language, we won’t be able to dictate that anyway. Dictionaries are still descriptive rather than proscriptive in nature. For example, it is now OK to say I am nauseous. Formerly, that would have meant that one caused nausea in others. Correct historic usage was “the nauseous motion of the boat made me nauseated.” Today, due to a couple of generations of misuse, the misuse has become correct. So, whatever it gets called in law, people will use the term they like. I would guess that it will be marriage, if we can ever form decent and moral laws on the subject in this country.

  20. bobbo says:

    Well, you upbraded me for using the generic polygamy when I should have been more specific with polygyny? Now you argue for generic “marriage.”

    Language is sufficient for its cultures needs. Eskimos have 50 words for snow. I would like 50 words for life partnerships.

    One each for:

    1. Man and woman of same age. (The Preferred Model)==They are married.
    2. Man older, woman younger. (May-December)==They are maydecced.
    3. Man younger, woman older. (Cougar)===They are cougared
    4. Man divorced, woman first time. (Trophy Wife)===They are trophied.
    5. Man divorced with kids, woman without kids. (Sucked In)===She was sucked in. Or He was sucked in for the reverse.
    6. Two Men ==They are manned.
    7. Two Women==They are femmed.
    8. Two Women with biologic child from one.
    9. Two Women with biologic children from both.
    and so forth, may need more than 50?

    Yes, words should be informative and differentially descriptive. But perhaps I am too pedantic.

  21. Misanthropic Scott says:

    ROFL bobbo,

    4. Man divorced, woman first time. (Trophy Wife)===They are trophied.

    4a. Later divorced from each other – atrophied.

  22. jonolan says:

    What do you call the up and coming professional and his “starter wife”?

  23. Misanthropic Scott says:

    jonolan,

    Um … yuppie puppies? twuppy? a pair of yups? yuppie hubby (can’t find two more rhymes for the wife)?

  24. Misanthropic Scott says:

    Here’s a cool event!! Check out Seven Straight Nights.

  25. BubbaRay says:

    Nice plug for this fine site on DU today — now ye are gettin’ the hang o’ them sails, matey. Yarrrr.

    I keep pluggin’ that Martin guy on Cage Match since he tends to occasionally find some neat stuff, maybe someone will get the hint and go join and comment. The Hop (hhopper) from DU writes some good stuff there also, as do you. Keep it up.

    More travel pix, please!

  26. Misanthropic Scott says:

    If you believe in equal rights in marriage, please sign the petition on the Human Rights Campaign page.

    http://tinyurl.com/39ba9h

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: