Friends, Reuters carried this photograph a few days ago. I was struck by its sadness.
In the image stand two women. One is dressed like a man while the other is dressed in bridal white. They are both members of the gay community and they look happy.
The gay community is trying to legitimize their relationships. To do this they want to alter all the conventions which apply to the predominantly heterosexual community. They demand to be ‘married.’ They demand to have or adopt children. They think that if they can do these things they will be accepted by the mainstream community. They won’t!
Why so, you ask? Let me give an example. The coloured community in America and Australia has managed to change all the laws concerning racial discrimination. But has that ended discrimination?
On the surface perhaps but anyone who is sensitive to the undercurrents which swirl through all societies knows that much racial discrimination still goes on behind the scenes. Guarded tolerance rather than acceptance is closer to the truth.
Laws have also been changed to protect the rights of women in the workplace. Do women have equality when it comes to salary scales or promotion? Of course not. The workplace is still too often a place that advantages men and, in the main, the glass ceiling still operates across the world.
The truth is that changing laws does not change people’s attitudes though it does allow people to coexist more easily.
I don’t think that the smiling couple shown above realize this. That’s why it’s sad. They are headed for eventual disappointment.
Then disappointment is something that is commonplace in our world.
Well put, David. I live in the San Francisco Bay Area. A place where many gay people seek refuge. It is as tolerant as it gets around here! I think that Gay people have the right to be bound in holy matrimony and have bridal registries and parties and most importantly the right to basic respect and laws that protect them and their loved ones….BUTT, maybe it is too much to ask for too many generalized laws? Adoption for example: just because the couple just happens to be gay doesnt mean they are supremely suited for adoption. Some people should be allowed to adopt, but I still believe in a strict process for handing over to any adult, a young child – who usually already has survived dysfunctional adults.
Gay people are challenging all of us to question – just what is healthy?
Statistics tell us that 10% of the population , throughout time.., is gay. So obviously, God makes gay people. They deserve the basic laws to protect them that the heteros enjoy.
The social judgements… that is another subject,, even if it is tied up in the Gay Marriage movement.
Expectations do lead to disappointment. This is a fact. Perhaps they should just stick with basic human rights. People can start from there. That questions much of the social darwinistic movement that has gained strength in recent times. Just like disabled people made us realize that disabled doesnt mean they are not part of socety. We built ramps and gave them disability status so that jobs could not discriminate and more..
Peace out.
Reply
David G Reply:
August 19th, 2010 at 10:06 pm
I feel that gays are reaching out too far, Grace, demanding the impossible. Why can’t they be satisfied with civil unions? Why can’t they leave marriage for heterosexuals and come up with their own word for a gay ceremony?
The female wearing a shirt and tie as if to copy a ‘husband’ does nothing to advance gay acceptance.
Reply
Grace Reply:
August 19th, 2010 at 11:21 pm
Yeah, Dave. I feel that if it could just be kept to Basic Human Rights, there wouldn’t be all the struggles. And society could be educated from there.
Reply
I believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman. (The body parts fit together so well.)
I believe you are right David in that there may be some measure of tolerance through laws that are passed but that is not the same as acceptance.
100 years ago in America two people didn’t have to apply for a marriage license from “The State.” Marriages, births and deaths were most likely recorded in the family bible or some other book of records. Vows were made to each other. The power of government wasn’t needed to insure or permit anything about this new union.
If we didn’t have to report to “The State” this might not be as much of an issue.
BUT… who knows? Tax laws and corporate laws are written around marriage and civil unions here in the USA.
Some companies have become more tolerant. Used to be that if I was married, my husband could be added to the health insurance plan that my company provided. But if I was only in a civil union, my partner could not qualify to have my health coverage as my dependent. The wording of “marriage” or “civil union” would matter in a case like that.
So who knows how far this will go? I read once that when something abnormal to much of a society comes to light then society will reject it at first. Then over time they will tolerate it. After more time they accept it. And finally as a last step..they embrace it. I think we’re still years away from the big embrace!
Reply
Peter Reply:
August 30th, 2010 at 4:37 pm
Kathy,
what you and others believe is irrelevant to others, unless your beliefs are forced upon others (through law or other social convention). Therein lies the seed of institutionalized bigotry. Saying what you believe, in this case, legitimizes that bigotry. Why not write, instead, that you prefer to be married to a man, thus personalizing your belief without rendering judgment through veiled condemnation?
Reply
Kathy Reply:
August 30th, 2010 at 8:46 pm
Peter, I would not write that I prefer to be married to a man because I prefer not to be married at all.
But who are you? Are you the comments teacher come to grade my comments and tell me what I should have written? I’m not a child. I’m also not interested in being politically correct.
Bigotry is a strong word to use. I don’t believe I’m guilty.
Reply
Grace, sometimes people demand too much and in so doing alienate everyone.
Kathy, it’s great to hear from you. I hope your transition is working out O.K. I agree that we are years away from the big embrace assuming it ever happens. After all this is not a ‘should women have the vote issue.’ It is far more complicated than that!
Reply
My friend has been with his partner for almost 40 years. He works as a nurse at the hospital.
When his partner became very ill, he was not covered under my friend’s insurance. This is America, remember, where insurance is private and job based.
My friend was not given time off through FMLA to care for his partner, because they are gay.
But guess what! The bill collectors damn well know who to call! They call my friend, not his partner, because he is the wage earner in the family.
So, yes, I support equal rights for gays.
Although if we had a decent society, with universal health care, it wouldn’t be that big a deal.
Reply
Wagelaborer, I assume they weren’t legally married yet their relationship has endured. That seems to suggest that the ‘marry’ demand is unnecessary assuming there are laws covering super, etc.
Reply
Wagelaborer, Your friends are a perfect example of why Laws DO need to be changed. What they experienced was inhumane. My heart goes out to them. G.
Reply