A Bee in my Bonnet

This post will undoubtedly make a few people angry.  It will most likely go against the beliefs of several people I know who read this blog. And that's okay.  I respect your beliefs and am glad that I have friends/family in my life who have those beliefs.

That said, I have something on my mind.

Here are a few things I know to be true about myself:

1. I’m all for gay marriage
2. I’m all for people being treated equally
3. I’m all for love

Our government in Washington State has recently passed the right for homosexual couples to be married legally in Washington.  When the government signed those bills I was thrilled. It showed me that we have a very understand government and that they too believe in equal rights. The signing of this bill/law hasn’t been without demonstrations or comments from opposing groups.  Which just means that we’ll have to vote on this in November. I’m confident enough in the people of Washington and they are progressive enough to understand why this is a good thing, that I believe it will pass.

There are, however, people who are very against anything gay.  Who aren’t afraid to tell me that I’m wrong and they can prove it by sending me this.  

I have an open mind.  I’ve discussed politics with my conservative mother for years.  She’s wrong of course, (snicker snicker) but I can have an intelligent conversation with her and appreciate her point of view.  In fact, I like hearing other points of view and I like taking a moment to consider them and determine if they make sense or not.  Sometimes I even agree with them. So when this was sent to me I read it.  And in reading it, I thought about the person who sent it to me.  A person who says he’s a Christian, who loves his neighbor and who isn’t judgmental at all.  Huh. Interesting, because this piece screams judgment and not loving your neighbor.

Now, I get the Christian belief. I understand that they believe the Bible says homosexuality is wrong.  I get it. I do.  I don’t agree with it but I get it.  See, I’m not religious.  I am skeptical and cynical when it comes to a religion.  I believe that God exists – or a version of God.  But I don’t believe the Bible is the only Word there is.  The Bible has been translated how many times? How can you believe it’s accurate? And I find it interesting how different religions can interpret the same passage differently. Which is why I have a hard time with the Christian argument that homosexuality is bad. If I believe EVERY word of the Bible, then I’d also believe that incest is okay. I mean, let’s look at Adam and Eve.  God say, “Go forth and multiply.” Which they did. They had kids.  Well, if the siblings didn’t sleep with each other, then how did the race continue?

But I digress. I’d like to discuss some of these “Top 10 Harms of Sam-Sex Marriage”.

#1

Taxpayers, consumers, and businesses would be forced to subsidize homosexual relationships.
The article claims that homosexuals are “eager” to “get their hands on” Social Security and that they want their partners to be eligible for Social Security survivors benefits.  It further goes on to say that these benefits were originally designed for stay-at-home mothers who did not have retirement benefits from an employer.

Um – hang on here.  If the benefit was “meant” for “stay-at-home” mom’s, then there are likely thousands of Americans who are getting benefit in correctly then. How is this caused by homosexuals? And why shouldn’t they have this right? They are people after all. Gay couples usually love each other and stay together way longer than heterosexual couples (see the Kardashian’s for that).

Anyhow, it also goes on to say that homosexuals want to get their partners named as dependents so taxpayers pay for health insurance.  Ah – only if they work for the government.  Don’t companies pay for peoples insurance? But the article does explain that the “Never mind that "dependents" were, when the tax code was developed, assumed to be children and stay-at-home mothers.” Again, then how many thousands of Americans who are straight are getting this benefit? And you’re not complaining about them.

But the part that really gets me is, “ And never mind that homosexuals have higher rates of physical disease, mental illness, and substance abuse, leading to more medical claims and higher insurance premiums.”  The author does sight the and his foot note says, “One of the architects of Social Security, Abraham Epstein, said, "[T]he American standard assumes a normal family of man, wife, and two or three children, with the father fully able to provide for them out of his own income." Abraham Epstein, Insecurity: A Challenge to America (New York: Harrison Smith and Robert Haas, 1933).” Oh well if it was written like that in 1933 then let’s never change. And let’s never use new technologies and new advancements to discover that it’s not just homosexual people who have mental illness or substance abuse. Ugh.

#2

Schools would teach that homosexual relationships are identical to heterosexual ones.
I could ask “what’s wrong with that?” but I know that’s way too easy.  Maybe if we start educating everyone about homosexuality there won’t be as many ignorant people in the world.  Parents often have the right to “opt out” of any curriculum a school provides.  So Opt out.  If you don’t want your child to learn and be open to ALL TYPES of people, then opt out. But I guarantee you that child will, in their lifetime, come across a gay person – why not give them the knowledge from both angles, for and against homosexuality, and let them as an individual decide. Oh and god forbid your child “turns out” gay.

#3

Freedom of conscience and religious liberty would be threatened.
The author says that same-sex “marriage” would serious damage religious liberties. Um and exactly what is your ignorant statements doing?  It says that professionals could be sued, like a doctor, for example, who refuses to treat a homosexual.   Well, I say, as a doctor I’m pretty sure the oath they took to care for sick people did not exclude homosexuals. Oh, but my favorite is the last line of this one, “Religious liberty is one of the deepest American val­ues. We must not sacrifice it on the altar of political correctness that homosexual “marriage” would create.” It may be a deep American value to some, but how many religions are there in the US? Do ALL religions feel the same way? And to me, the “deep American Value” has always been the melting pot theory. We take all kinds here. And guess what, that includes homosexuals.

#4

Fewer people would marry.
Wait what?  News flash…people are already opting out of marriage.  The author argues that even where same-sex marriage is legal few people opt to marry.  And maybe that’s true, but just because it’s legal doesn’t mean the HAVE to marry. I mean a homosexual relationship has all the components of a hetero one, and sometimes people just don’t want to marry. And that’s okay.  The author throws up several numbers, and percentages that show that in states and countries where gay marriage is legal, many are choosing not to.  His hypothesis is then, “These figures show that a large percentage, and pos­sibly even an outright majority, of homosexuals—even those already living with a partner—neither need nor desire to participate in the institution of marriage. Legalizing same-sex “marriage” would be very effective in sending a message of endorsement of homosexual behavior.” Endorsing it? Why does it need to be endorsed? Open your eyes you moron, it’s already happening.  Making it “legal” doesn’t mean its saying, “hey everyone, let’s be gay.” Guns are legal.  Does that mean murder is legal?

This argument to me is so ridiculous. I don’t even know where to begin.

#5

Fewer people would remain monogamous and sexually faithful.
I had no idea homosexuality had such strength.  So if we legalize same sex marriage, fewer people would remain monogamous? Huh? The authors says that “marriage itself is a sexually exclusive relationship.” Right! And that’s why adultery is so high right now.  And that’s why people who are our “leaders” and “Christians” are having affairs.  So every homosexual, according to this author, is likely to have a lifelong partner, AND sleep around.  Um, straight people have been doing that for years. It’s a human issue, not a sexual preference issue.

#6

Fewer people would remain married for a lifetime.
Hi, again, newsflash, have you seen the stats on marriage. 50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce. FIFTY PERCENT.  Whereas homosexual partners are likely to stay together WAY longer than heterosexual.  In this contemporary world, where views of marriage have shifted so drastically from that classic model of " 'til death do us part," to this new idea of, "until I get sick of you," what gives anyone the authority to deny someone the right to marriage? Some argue that unions between homosexuals could somehow soil the sanctity of marriage, but if that's their main concern, then someone ought to let them know: between 45-55 percent of legal, heterosexual marriages end in divorce. So-called sacred unions are broken apart every day. It is someone's right to decide who they wish to spend their lives with, as is who they choose as a sexual partner. And, as long as both parties are of legal age and give their consent, it's no one else's business. Why, then, does everyone seem to want to make gay marriage a part of their business? The general public will be asked only to tolerate these unions, much like they were asked to tolerate bi-racial unions 50 years ago. Is that really so difficult?

#7

Fewer children would be raised by a married mother and father.
Oh this one I love.  The author writes, and I quote, “The greatest tragedy resulting from the legalization of homosexual “marriage” would not be its effect on adults, but its effect on children. For the first time in history, society would be placing its highest stamp of official government approval on the deliberate cre­ation of permanently motherless or fatherless house­holds for children. There simply cannot be any serious debate, based on the mass of scholarly literature available to us, about the ideal family form for children. It consists of a mother and father who are committed to one another in marriage.”

Well, given the divorce rate, I’m willing to say that divorce is causing many children to not have a father or a mother at the same time. And if they do, chances are high that they aren’t necessarily a perfect family.  How many thugs out there are the result of single parent families? Probably a lot.  How many criminals are the result of loving parents – father and mother – probably a lot. 

So a child has two mom’s or two dads.  If the two parents love that child as much as they can, then it’s a win-win. The child gets love. 

He goes on to say, “Children of lesbians are more likely to engage in homosexual behavior.” Um, just because a gay couple raises a kid, does not mean that kid will become gay itself. Pul-eeze.  This is an old wives tale that’s designed to cause fear and ignorance, and quite frankly, it’s just dumb.  I mean let’s look at it from a heterosexual perspective.  The gay people I know, ALL came from heterosexual couples.  So if gay parents raise gay kids, doesn’t it therefore mean that heterosexual parents raise hetero kids?  Same twisted logic, but somehow doesn’t seem to apply for this author.

#8
More children would grow up fatherless.
Um, or more children grow up with TWO fathers and no mother.  He expresses that a child growing up without a father and a mother will be “deprived of the tangible and intangible benefits of security that come from that family structure.” Right, all the way up until the parents get a divorce.  Again, to me, if you have two parents who love each other, and teach love, then the child should feel that security.  I can’t even count how many heterosexual families, whose children are whacked out because they lived with a mother and father. Every case is going to be unique and different and saying that because a child doesn’t have a father or a mother that they are somehow “missing out” is sad and wrong.  One of my good friends grew up without a father, she turned out just fine.

#9

Birth rates would fall.
Really?

The author says that giving the right to marry to people who are “intrinsically incapable of natural pro-creation” would dramatically change the social meaning of the institution of marriage.”

So by his logic, hetero couples who can’t get pregnant and use other means to have babies, then they too are dramatically changing the meaning.  He says long term fewer babies would be born. Well, that’s okay isn’t it? I mean have you seen the current population of this world.  Does EVERYONE need to have a baby?  I mean whether a homosexual couple marries or not doesn’t stop all the teenagers from having babies out of wedlock. That doesn’t damage the “sanctity of marriage”.

“…legalization of same-sex “marriage” would reinforce a declining emphasis on procreation as a key purpose of marriage—resulting in lower birth rates than if it had not been legalized.” I thought the key purpose of marriage was a tax write off. Okay, I’m kidding. But I’m not certain that the only purpose of marriage is to pro-create. I have several, SEVERAL friends who are married who have chosen to not have kids.  Likewise, I have several friends who are married who have had a ton of kids.  So to me, it’s kinda a wash.  I’m a single girl and I’m not having kids. But somewhere in the world, I’m betting within our own perfect little extended family, there’s a teenager who’s having a baby out of wedlock. 

And last but not least, #10

Demands for legalization of polygamy would grow.

For starters, I don’t see what the issue is with polygamy.  And how does homosexual marriage rights equate to this?  The author suggests that allowing homosexuals to marry is just the start of the downhill spiral and will open the door to allow other types of “marriages”. And so what?

So in closing, I know several of my Christian friends – if they’re still reading that is – are likely shaking their head at me in disgust. And that’s okay. I respect their beliefs and hope they can respect mine.  But at the end of the day, aren’t there more important things to bother with? How does two men or two women wanting to love each other and be a couple legally really affect you as an individual? We aren't all Christians and shouldn't be put in the "bucket" of what's right and wrong based on the "religious" belief of people.

I really wish we could all just get along. Live in harmony and stop forcing our religions on to everyone. And it’d be great if we could keep religion and government separate like the Constitution says.   

Some of my favorite people are gay, and they are some of the best people I know. Open, understanding, and caring.  They are, after all, humans first, American's second and should be given the same rights as all American's.