Hot on HuffPost Parents:
Are Toxic Chemicals To Blame For Rising Rates Of Autism?
Melina Bellows: Why Being a Mom is the Coolest Job Ever
Why was that a big deal?
Filed under: Gay Parenting, In The News, Sex
I very much want my kids to be able to marry whoever they want when they grow up, subject only to my approval, not the state's. I care about things like whether or not they smoke (duh, it causes cancer, it will kill you, that's a no-no), how much metal (or other objects) they have stuck in their body (ideally, none), and whether or not they have an acceptable career plan in place. What they have -- or don't have -- betwixt their legs doesn't really factor into it at all. I seriously hope my kids don't get married for sex.To some, however, not only is marriage all about the sex, they want the state to make certain that everyone else is focused on it too, when they get married. In California, the state Supreme Court has been hearing oral arguments on the matter recently. People trying to explain why marriage should be limited to one man and one woman have taken turns with those who say they just want to get married.
One writer for the San Francisco Chronicle, however, has listened with amusement. He knows that gay marriage is coming, whether anyone likes it or not. His son came out when he was in high school and has faced very little trouble over it. Massachusetts has not turned into a seething portal to hell after legalizing gay marriage.
"It is the normal interaction in everyday life," said San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera. "It is the guy at the water cooler at work, seeing them with their kids - that's what drives it home for people." Herrera is handling the lawsuit before the court on behalf of the City. The fact of the matter is, as time goes by, homosexuality will become, has become as normal as anything else.
Once upon a time, seeing a woman wear pants was a rarity -- I'm sure people would stop and stare. They did the same in the eighties when kids colored their hair purple or put it up in spikes or mohawks. None of that is seen as especially unusual these days and homosexuality is becoming more and more pedestrian everyday.
As C.W. Nevius notes, the older generation is going on and on about how marriage must be reserved for a man and a woman, but the younger generations aren't listening. They simply don't care. Someday, hopefully soon, gay couples will be no more noteworthy than interracial couples or a couple -- like my parents -- where one is Catholic and the other Jewish. All that will matter is that they are happy together.
Your<span>Voice</span>
Ask Us Anything About Parenting
Recently Asked
- Surrogate wanted
- parenting plan, can he take my child if he files before me? the child lives with me and he rarely ever takes him.. but ive been told him he files befo...
- This is not a question. But their NO!!!!! such thing of a perfect parent like every thing in all our life is a learning experience.One thing we all pa...
TheTalkies:RelatedVideos
-
Cynthia Nixon Says Gays Don't Want to Redefine Marriage
"Sex and the City" star Cynthia Nixon weighs in on the gay marriage debate. "Gay people who want to marry have no desire to redefine marriage in any way," she says. "When women got the vote, they did not redefine voting."Justice in its
-
Argentina's First Gay Marrieds Reflect on Change
Alex Freyre and Jose Maria Di Bello became the first gay couple in Latin America to get married.
-
Nunberg: Time Alone Will Grant Gays Right to Marry
Geoffrey Nunberg, in his most recent book Talking Right, performs an intellectually rigorous analysis of how the Republicans have done a far better job than the Democrats of mastering the use of buzz phrases and language to mislead and distract. In doing so, his book has garnered praise even from such right-wing wordsmiths as William Safire. Join us for a discussion of how language influenced the choice of our next President. In this segment, the hope for gay rights to marry is discussed.
-
Sky-High Nuptials for Gay Couple
Phil Fung and Shawn Klein upped the romance quotient by marrying on Valentine's Day 61 floors up in New York's Empire State Building. Every year hundreds of couples compete for the privilege of tying the knot here. But Fung and Klein's union is the first same-sex wedding to take place in the famous landmark - possible since New York became the sixth U.S. state to give gays and lesbians the right to marry. Klein says this wasn't their original plan.
SitesWeLove
- Site Map
- |
- Staff
- |
- Terms of Service
- |
- Privacy Policy
- |
- Trademarks
- |
- Advertise With Us
- |
- About Our Ads
- |
- AOL Downloads
- |
- Contact Us
- |
© Copyright 2012 AOL Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Aol Family
ReaderComments (Page 2 of 2)
3-06-2008 @ 8:32PM
the goddess anna said...I meant to add that I'll bet those smart Finns knew that too.
Reply
3-06-2008 @ 9:50PM
the goddess anna said...Nina - I did not say it was a choice to be gay - I said it's a choice to act upon it. I find women as attractive as I do men, but I only sleep with my husband. See the difference?
Okay, I'm done.
Reply
3-07-2008 @ 10:45AM
ninainindia said...I see the difference but I do not agree with you that it is a choice. Or maybe it is a choice but not one that people should be forced to make, that takes the choice part away.
If a man is in love with a man and wants to spend the rest of his life with him and only him, you are saying he should forget this person he loves and go find someone else he doesn't love like that just because of genders. I don't agree with that.
The main this I don't understand is is why people care about what others do with their (sex)lives. It has nothing to do with them, why object to it? They are not looking to convert you to homosexuality, they just want to live there lives as they see fit.
3-08-2008 @ 4:33PM
toni said...its a choice to act upon being heterosexual too. and whatever the person's "choice", its just that, THEIR choice of sexual preference. why does the law need to be involved in who a person chooses to fall in love with??
3-06-2008 @ 11:41PM
SKL said...Yes, as a matter of fact, gay marriage does involve a transfer of wealth from non-gay people to gay couples. Not just taxes, but also health insurance premiums, and probably other stuff too.
Most Americans feel that the benefits of having children grow up with a mother and a father is worth the cost of taxing/penalizing non-married people to benefit married people. That is the real reason for all the economic breaks for married male/female couples. So far I have never heard a compelling argument for a transfer of wealth from non-married people to same-sex people who choose to get married or whatever else they want to call it. Nor have I been convinced that a child raised in a homosexual household is in a better situation than a child raised by a single parent who isn't cohabitating. Nor have I ever heard any other convincing argument for why money I earn should be transferred to "married" gay people.
Gays like to argue that my point of view is "discrimination" against gay people. No. It's about discrimination against single people. Such discrimination needs a very compelling justification. Just because married heterosexuals get away with some of my money doesn't mean it's up for grabs by everyone else too.
Reply
3-06-2008 @ 11:54PM
W. H. Heydt said...When I heard the reports of the Ca. Supreme Court hearing, I wasn't in the least surprised that the 1948 decision of that same court discarding anti-miscengenation laws was brought up.
What did surprie me was that the USSC dismissal of the concept of "separate, but equal" wasn't mentioned.
At present, marriage in the US is a civil contract. There are a plethora of rights, obligations and priveleges that go with it that no couple has to explicitly fight for--they are set in statute.
What the gays are fighting for, so far as I can tell, is to end the idea that one can have a "separate, but equal" kind of marriage. I agree on that point.
If those opposed to gay marriage really wish to fight to "preserve marriage", shouldn't they be trying to get laws passed to ban divorce?
Reply
3-07-2008 @ 1:42AM
Carolyn said...My husband and I often marvel that our 2-year old daughter will not know a world before flat screen TVs, before reusable shopping bags, before TIVO and maybe even hybrid cars. If she does remember a time before gay marriage, but I doubt she'll know it well. I'm glad for that.
Carolyn
http://www.momsontheedge.ca
Reply
3-07-2008 @ 2:13AM
SKL said...Yes, Roger, many of your posts show a rather extreme level of intolerance. For example, intolerance regarding basing personal choices on one's personal (or family's) religious beliefs. Books relating to religion (other than atheism) in kids' libraries. Basically anything where religion is involved in an individual's lifestyle or beliefs. You implied that parents who are wary of vaccines are insane or moronic. You practically had a stroke when someone offered your child a temporary tattoo, and again when someone offered him a piece of candy. And so on. And furthermore you are quite closed-minded, which is keeping you from being self-aware enough to get what I'm saying. Oh, well.
By the way, I have no problem with gays and I don't personally care what they do as individuals. One need not be a homophobe to disagree with gay marriage. Some gays, in fact, disagree with gay marriage. Personally I am not in favor of it only because it would result in a transfer of wealth that requires a justification which I have not seen. If I am presented with a compelling justification, I might change my position. So when my grandkids ask me "why" when I'm old, I won't have any trouble explaining my answer.
And back on the original point of that linked article (which I did not read so I am taking your word for it), just because a large group of Americans gradually comes to accept things as "no big deal" (i.e., gets desensitized) doesn't mean it really is no big deal. It doesn't even mean that most Americans actually agree that it's no big deal. Take the Clinton zipper debacle. The media went on and on about how Americans don't care about morals in elections so they should re-elect Clinton. They even had some people convinced that they shouldn't care if Clinton committed adultery with an adolescent employee in the oval office and then lied under oath about it in the context of a trial on his sexually assaulting another woman. A couple of elections later, both parties were all about proving they were the "moral" party. Similarly, in the past the liberal platform was that abortion is no big deal and nobody's business because it's just a mushy piece of flesh you're removing from your "own body." Recently, they are adopting statements such as "abortion should be RARE, safe and legal." So wow, you mean it is a big deal after all? The fact is, the only people who ever stopped thinking these moral issues were important were those who had no strong convictions themselves. And more to the present point, true values / morals don't depend on what our neighbors, media, politicians, or clergy think, and they don't float around whichever way the breeze blows.
Reply
3-07-2008 @ 10:08AM
Monica said...This is the part of your post that bothers me SKL:
Personally I am not in favor of it only because it would result in a transfer of wealth that requires a justification which I have not seen
In my view, admitting that this issue is more about the transfer of wealth through tax and insurance benefits makes it, more than ever an oppression rather than a debate. Again, if we look at previous legislations that were later repealed, if you substitute women or coloured people in that statement do you still feel that there needs to be a justification before changing it?
I'm sure that men were concerned that giving women the vote would cause us to expect more from our representation, eating away at their rights, and they were right. I'm also sure that the white establishment was concerned about the same thing when blacks were given the chance to go to school, and vote, and marry who they chose.
Just because it's lawful to give someone less than you are legally entitled to doesn't mean it's right. I would think that is all the justification that anyone who believes in doing unto others as you would like to have done to you would require to support the change.
I personally think this has a lot to do with our kids. One of the rights that causes the most difficulty in families who can not be married is the care and support of their children. Who can be the legal guardian for medical purposes, who the school will deal with, who can provide medical insurance through an employment plan. All of those things affect children who live around us every day.
3-07-2008 @ 10:44AM
Mel said...Why are some of you saying that older people are the only ones opposed to gay marriage? There are SO MANY young people who are just as "bigoted." And here's the thing...the people who opposed integration STILL oppose it today. So there is no shame when their grandkids ask them about it. They still hold the same convictions, and can offer the same explanations they had 50 years ago. Same with those who currently oppose gay marriage - they will STILL oppose it in 50 years. Convictions are convictions; they don't change just because a law has been passed. As much as some of you would like to think that the New World Order has got us all "accepting" anything and everything, you are wrong.
Reply
3-07-2008 @ 10:04PM
Nyx said...Yeah, how dare we expect people to adapt and change! God, it's almost like you're a human being with a functioning frontal lobe, instead of a rock on the ground somewhere.
I can't believe you're defending homophobia... by saying that old people didn't like sharing space with non-Caucasian races and it's okay for them to be racist. Hey! Newsflash! No. It's not. And I'm hoping that most people reading this can see through the moronic "I thought all you libruls were tolerant, you're shure not toleratin' me" strawman.
I have not taught my children that they need to tolerate a slap in the face from a bully - I will not teach them that they need to tolerate jingoist hatred from the feeble-minded, regardless of what political leaning, faith, or race that person is - it's all one piece of garbage.
3-08-2008 @ 3:51AM
toni said...I know 2 lesbian couples that have been together in committed, monogomous relationships for longer than MOST heterosexuals I know (30 years and 15 years). One of these couples owns multiple properties and two restaurants together yet they can only legally be "business partners." They are in love and care deeply for one another. In the course of their relationship, a brother of one of them, who is a Born-Again Christian, has been married 4 times and engaged two others!! THAT is ridiculous to me. These woman respect and understand the marital institution and should be able to marry. My mom brought up how terrible it would be if my son ended up gay and I never had grandchildren. (Came up because of a discussion regarding one of her friends.) You know, it really wouldnt matter a whole lot. Who my son, or anyone else in the world, chooses to fall in love with and marry is their business. TOLERANCE and ACCEPTANCE is the key to getting rid of the hatred and bigotry in this country of ours. Come on people.....wake up.............
Reply
3-08-2008 @ 11:01AM
Mel said...Nyx, please. I didn't anywhere in my comment even allude to that ubiquitous strawman fallacy to which you referred. I'd never be that predictable. Clearly, you lack the depth to comprehend the thrust of my comment. I'd break it down for you, but I doubt you'd get it even then.
Reply
3-12-2008 @ 2:23AM
Amanda said...First of all, let me just say, I consider myself to fall in the "Evangelical Christian" category. WAIT, before you pass over my thoughts, hear me out! My problem isn't so much with "GAY" marriage as it is with what marriage, in general, has become. Marriage is about commitment, come hell or highwater, and for so many people, they run and renounce at the first sign of seepage. It's become more about a wedding than it is about a lasting relationship. If anyone is educated on the history of marriage and ceremony, they can tell you that the origins of marriage are so radically different than what we know marriage to be today. I don't care who you marry, but I care that you take it seriously. And part of taking it seriously is doing your homework before committing to someone for the rest of your life. I hate to see marriage become a sham because so many are unwilling to work hard to make it last.
Reply