YOUR TURN: Reader's Roundup:


Dale: It is not clear to me that gay men are less monogamous about extra-marital adventures. My own suspicion is that gay men are simply more honest about flings. My other impression is that gay male couples put a much higher emphasis on honesty than monogamy. It is much safer for a gay man to have a partner who will tell him of outside adventures than to live with a myth of monogamy protecting from disease.


Peter: Forgive my naive intrusion into these proceedings, but doesn't the question of gay marriage come down to a simple question of constitutional rights and fairness? I'm no scholar, but I find it pretty hard to believe that a fair reading of the Constitution doesn't bestow the same rights on all citizens, promiscuity and other issues aside. If we are going to deny gay people the rights that straight people enjoy, there has to be a basis in law for denying them those rights. Is there such a basis? Whether we believe gay marriage is a desirable social institution or not, isn't the Constitution the last word on the subject?

Adeke: I'm just a simple child of God,worshipping with a church(Pasture of Life Discipleship Ministries,Nigeria) with a focus on discipleship and mission.I work with GS-Telecom Nigeria Ltd as Operation Engineer. I'm praying that this ungodly move will be crushed because America has always been a model to Africa/the world.Success of this move in America can only make it spread like wild-fire. I want to remind America that what they are enjoying today is the labour of good Christian leaders that lay the foundation of America on the Rock-- GOD

Reader: I was not aware that the purity of one's citizenship depended on his marital status. I don't know any single heterosexuals who go about complaining of their second-class citizenship. They don't generally behave like aggrieved members of a victim class, demanding that the state supply them with what nature, luck, and the moral sensibilities of their fellow citizens will not. Embedded within Mr. Dykes' objection ("second-class citizens") is the supposition that he has a right to that condition which will elevate him to first-class, which right is the very question at issue.

Even the expressed wish for an "alternative arrangement" again assumes the "right" to such a thing. And, again, not even heterosexuals make this demand. What a lot of them do is shack up together, as do homosexuals, but they don't then demand that the state recognize such a union. (They will, though, as homosexual civil unions spread across the country.) But even if the state does recognize such unions, it will not be enough. What the agitators want is society's moral approval, and only the right to marry will confer that.

We know something about the old and its benefits for society. We know nothing about what the effects of this new kind portend, although we can make some pretty good guesses. Those who would have us embrace the new dispensation for marriage are asking us to consent to a giant experiment upon the moral foundations of our society, and I'd like more than their word that the effects will be salutary and not subversive. Your efforts are heroic, Ms. Gallagher, but based upon the arguments I've seen coming from the other side, I just don't think the minds of your main interlocutors are subject to change. Which is no good reason to stop, of course, because I do think you will cement the loyalty, perhaps even the conversion, of many readers. Who knows? Maybe even Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day are reading.

Reader: In this debate I am finding articulate people from mostly the radical left and a few from the more standard left ( Maggie, etc.) I'm not reading contributions from the center as I understand these demarcations. Prior to 1973, one could speak out against war, advocate respect and opportunities for minorities and disadvantaged people, rail against the military industrial complex and corporate America, and retain a strong sense of dignity in identifying with liberal Democrats. That is where I was at and pretty much remain.

When it came to our views on homosexuality, liberals and conservatives near the center agreed that in no way should homosexuals be persecuted; Their practices were not condoned but were tolerated. The vast majority of humanity still retains a similar understanding of the homosexual condition.

Nevertheless, through the breakdown in marriage laws, the constant invasions from the fantasy world of movie-land and TV, the horrendously inordinate obsession with sexuality, the commercial trashing of modesty and moderation, the concomitant greed of consumption and gluttony with its accompanying eating disorders, and, most importantly, through the workings of a cadre of elite intellectuals hell-bound to deconstruct, to dismember all of the unifying societal forces that work towards the maintenance of healthy family structures that facilitate the development of individuals capable of approaching their real potential as human beings, we have now arrived at our present state in which the unthinkable and the utterly absurd is heralded as a great social good.

People imagine it is their right to not only be allowed to practice any number of bizarre sexual activities but to have our government officially sanction them, bless them! In the city of Portland, Oregon, the mayor issued a proclamation honoring the contributions of the leather fetish sado-masochists. With respect to society and family we are moving in the wrong direction. We need to strengthen the institution of marriage not debase it further.

Reader: So, Maggie, you lament about the state of heterosexual marriage previous to the quotation above, then lambast equal marriage rights advocates for pressing for equal marriage rights, because, as you say, the problems facing heterosexual marriage are more important than same sex marriage at this point.

Now, really, isn't this a bit hypocritical of you? Same sex marriage advocates should be trying to fix heterosexual marriage, otherwise they're "narcissistic" and selfish, but somehow it's acceptable for you to spend all of your time and efforts working against same sex marriage, rather than trying to fix heterosexual marriage?

Perhaps it's time for you to take some of your own advice. Rather than spending so much time and effort trying to keep committed people from getting the benefits of civil marriage, maybe you should put your money where your mouth is and concentrate your efforts on fixing the problems of heterosexual marriage. Otherwise, you're being entirely hypocritical.
posted by maggie at 1:06 AM VOTE

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home