Straight Talking About Homosexuality

Posted by Joshua White on 06.07.2006

Recently President Bush declared that the term "marriage" should be defined as one man and one woman. Does that mean that Bush wouldn't mind if a gay man and a lesbian married?

I am not gay. I don't want to be gay. I am made a touch uncomfortable when I see two guys kiss (and made a touch horny when I see two girls do the same). I don't want my daughter to be gay. I really don't want my son (who I plan on having in the next few years) to be gay.

Does this make me homophobic? Nope. Why?

Because, on the other hand, I don't care if you are gay. I don't care if you kiss another man (if you're a dude). And I don't mind that you're gayily living together with your man. (And I just saw Brokeback Mountain, and if that movie doesn't at least move you a little...you've got no soul. Poor Ennis.)

Now, what I have just done is something that I have rarely seen done in politics. I have spoken to you, my followers, honestly about my thoughts on gay people and homosexuality.

This past Saturday, President Bush gave his weekly radio address and he offered up his opinion on the Senate debate that took place this past Monday. Seemingly out of the blue, the Senate has decided to bring up the gay marriage amendment. Continuing with his past stance, Bush wants to make it a Constitutional amendment that marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman.

But the reason that he's doing this doesn't seem to be forthright and honest. I just wish that he'd (and the rest of the Congress) would admit it.

Bush claims that the reason he wants the amendment to pass is because it would be best for society on whole. He said:

"Marriage is the most enduring and important human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and a wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society. Marriage cannot be cut off from its cultural, religious, and natural roots without weakening this good influence on society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all."

When I read this I noticed that he mentioned that he believes that marriage is honored by every faith. I think that this is more likely to be the reason that he is against the gay marriage amendment. I think that after all is said and done, it isn't because gay marriage is bad for society; it is that his faith tells him that it is wrong to be gay. And I'm fine with that. But I want him to be honest about that. Don't give the American public this generic "it's bad for society" crap, when you have true feelings that you aren't telling us.

Ok, I know it wouldn't be politically correct, but why can't someone in politics, anyone, say something like the following:

"I don't like homosexuality. I think it is icky. And frankly the thought of two guys kissing repulses me. Further, I'm a Christian. And it says in the bible that homosexuality is a sin. I feel, as a holder of public office, that it is my duty to stop people from sinning. By doing this I will be helping the country run in a better fashion. Further, I come from a southern state where more people than not feel the same way that I do. This is why I'm for the gay marriage amendment."

Then we could have an honest debate about whether or not it is wrong. Because that is what we need to have first. I fail to see how you could say that gay marriage is bad for society, but being gay is just fine and dandy. Nobody political has openly come out said that "being gay is wrong" (except for the members of various religious organizations).

So, with all that said, and before I address more of Bush's speech specifically I have another question: why is the Senate debating this right now? There hasn't been anything in the news about some "activist judge" disregarding the law. So why is the Senate doing this? This strikes me as awfully political. I mean, let's be honest...the Senate elections are coming up and this is a great issue to divide people. But I can't think of another reason, besides just lame political maneuvering that could bring this discussion about right now. (Remember, it was almost two years ago when this issues was on the front page. It was July 10 when the president last made a radio address about it.) This issue is obviously not only the tip of most people's tongues.

Next, I'd like to discuss a few more of the points that Bush made in his speech.

To begin with I'd like to talk about the quote that I mentioned above. I will not deny that most cultures and religions do encourage marriage, but Bush is forgetting a few things as he makes this very general statement. First, different religions think about marriage different and what they consider marriage I'm not so sure he would. For instance, the Mormons and the Muslim both believe that is just fine for a man to have more than one wife.

I think further that it has not been proven that marriages consisting of a man and a woman are better than two men or two women. In fact that American Psychological Association has proven the opposite. In studies it has been found that children thrive just as well in lesbian homes as they do in standard heterosexual families (and while it hasn't been proven the same with gay families, I find it hard to believe that there are difference that would change the findings).

Here are some of their findings:

1. Gay parents aren't that different from their "het" counterparts. The study didn't find a "markedly" different aspect between gay and straight parents. Further, being gay didn't stop them from being good parents. Wow! That is amazing isn't it? Your sexuality doesn't mess with your parenting ability. What? What makes you a good parent...what makes you someone who can take good care of kids isn't your desire to have sex with the opposite sex? That's news to me. (My surprise is said sarcastically.)

2. When children of lesbian parents, ages 5-14, we studied, they didn't show to have any more gender identity problems than kids raised in a traditional family. None of them wanted to be a different sex.

3. In every one of the studies, the "great majority" of the kids of both gay and lesbian parents said that they were heterosexual. This, too me, seems to be one of the biggest myths of homosexual parenting: it'll cause more gays. Hell, if you have gay parents, and you only know gaydom...wouldn't you become gay? Now, it is not that bizarre to believe this. Hell, most gay children are born from heterosexual parents. So, why couldn't the opposite be true? Look, gay people don't want to turn people gay any more than heterosexual people want to turn gay people straight (that is normal heterosexual people...not those crazy religious people who think that you can pray the gay away). Of course there are times when the gay guy wishes that a hot straight guy was gay, but the reverse is true for a straight guy and a hot lesbian chick. What gays want is the same rights as straight people...not to change us. So they're not going to take care of a kid just to try to make them gay. (Plus, if they really loved them, they wouldn't want them to be gay. It is a harder life to live and no good parent wants a harder life for their kid.)

Now, I'll admit that the amount of studies out there on this subject is limited, but the small number that are available lead us to believe that there is very little, if anything, wrong with gay parenting. So, I'm not really sure why the president things that marriage, being defined as "one man and one woman" "promotes the welfare of children."

Hell, even if we were to assert that gay families aren't as good as traditional families aren't they at least better than orphanages? If we were to allow gay families, who passed all the necessary tests, to take kids home, wouldn't these kids be more loved and taken care of than if they were to live their full childhood in an orphanage? At least they'd have people who loved them and wanted what was best. Ok, perhaps it isn't the absolute best of all situations, but there are a lot of times when families aren't "at their best" but they are better than nothing or even an orphanage. (For example, think about all the grandmothers that take care of kid because both parents died. Would it really be better for that kid to be placed in a family with a mom and dad?).

One solution that is being offered is to say that marriage is defined as one man and one woman, but homosexual can become partners in civil unions. My problem with this is that there would be no difference between a civil union and a marriage other than wording alone. If this is the case then I see no reason to go through this whole long process. If there is really no difference, then the only people who should really be complaining are the religious, not the political. And the religious people would get their way in their realm. They can say no religious marriages between two men. But they should have no say in what the political sphere does with regards to marriage. If they don't like it...tough. They can always claim that theirs are the real marriages under God and the legal ones are not. Anything more than that they shouldn't be allowed to do.

I feel the need for this column to mention the "activist judges." Bush said in his speech that "[i]n 1996, Congress approved the Defense of Marriage Act by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in both the House and Senate, and President Clinton signed it into law," continuing a few sentences later with "Unfortunately, activist judges and some local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage in recent years."

I have a few problems with Bush's commentary here. While he's right that Clinton signed into law the Defense of Marriage act, the problem here is that it is unconstitutional. The tenth amendment says that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Where in the Constitution did Clinton get the right to define marriage as he did and then say that no other state has to recognize another's marriage? Clinton paid no mind to the 10th amendment or to the notion of state's rights.

So, if these "activist judges" find that this law, or their particular laws are unconstitutional then who else but these men can start the process of changing the laws. Maybe it wasn't the best way to do this, but because a few rogue judges act out that is no reason to change the Constitution...not for something this trivial. Punish the judges, enact stronger state laws, but changing the Constitution is just overkill.

And let me end an increasingly long column by mentioning the threat that is made to this country by the marriage of two men. Apparently, your marriage (assuming you're married) is being undermined by this radical homosexual agenda! I have to be honest...I don't get it. I don't understand this argument. How is the commitment that a man makes to a woman, and the woman to the man, made weaker because two men make the same type of vow? How is your marriage made less valuable, or wonderful? I mean, let's remember, no marriage is THAT special to anyone but you. Thousands of marriages happen every year. That doesn't undermine your marriage. So how would a few gay couples destroy your particular pact made under God? Again, this (the gay marriage) wouldn't be a religious marriage, but a legal one. Who cares? Aren't there more pressing matters?

I won't deny that marriage is an important institution between a man and woman; especially when it is done under the watchful eye of God it can serve as a wonderful contract. But legal marriage is more than just a contract. It offers a wide variety of services that can't be offered to those who are legally classified as "single", either because of their own choosing or because they are forced to be because they are gay. But that is not why this amendment troubles me most. This amendment totally denies the findings of psychological studies, the 10th amendment, past laws, and it could be argued that it ignores the separation of church and state. I know that this amendment won't pass this year. It doesn't have the backing. And for all these reasons above, I hope that it never does.