Slog - The Stranger's Blog

Line Out

The Music Blog

« Glass Houses | Attention Smokers... »

Saturday, August 5, 2006

Gay Army

Posted by on August 5 at 18:49 PM

I finally got around to reading about the gay marriage decision in this state, an issue that I have little interest in, only because I think the institution of marriage itself is bad. Marriage, like slavery, should be abolished. But I do realize that, as a heterosexual male, this belief comes from a clear position of privilege. But consider this for a moment: In the the 90s, all the fuss was about gays getting into the army, another institution that should be abolished; these days, however, the gay community is not pressing that issue so hard, if at all.

CommentsRSS icon

Marriage, like slavery, should be abolished.

Question - and I mean this not in a baiting manner but in a serious and friendly way - what mechanisim do you use to protect and nurture children with, once marriage is abolished?

Why do you want to nurture children with a MECHANISM?


By being a protective and nurturing parent, of course.
Marriage is not necessary nor sufficient for that.

Marriage is not at all necessary to the nurturing of children. My parents were never married, and my mom even had kid with another guy my dad raised. We were an unconventional family in the best way.
I never felt my parents weren't together just because they didn't have a piece of paper.
My parents are no longer together, but that was my doing because my mother was abusive and I gave my dad an ultimatum one day. No marriage license made the split much easier.

In discussion of any issue, there eventually comes a point when someone mentions either Hitler or the children. It has the effect of shutting down discussion immediately. Who in their right mind would argue in favor or Hitler or against the children?

I agree that government should get out of the marriage business entirely, but I don't see why marriage would need to be "abolished" as long as there are people who like being married. False analogy there, comparing it with slavery.

Gays in the military is still an issue.

Brian: What aspect of marriage law "protects and nurtures children"? Just what legal protection do children of married parents enjoy that children of unmarried parents do not?

As far as I can tell, over the last 30 years, we have developed child welfare laws that essentially treat "legitimate" and "illigitimate" children the same.

I think the new Roomba for next year comes with a mechanism for protecting and nurturing children. Oh and guess what: each model will come in four different colors by Q3 2007.

It's pretty hard to take seriously anything someone says when they offer something like equating marriage to slavery.

What about nazis?

Charles: Please consider advocating the elimination of government-sponsored marriage in the pages of the Stranger. You'd be amazed at the fraction of people who, when confronted with this idea, respond: "the possibility never occured to me!"

On some issues the Stranger may be "alternative", but on this it is boringly mainstream.

By being a protective and nurturing parent, of course.
Marriage is not necessary nor sufficient for that.

There must be a societal framwork in place to protect children, else what is the point?

I agree that marriage is not necessary to that.

But you need that framwork to protect the children. If we all agree that 'you don't need a marriage license' - then fine. But we don't all agree on that, yet.

Sean Nelson,

I think you mean— "Who Makes the Nazis?"

I cannot even BELIEVE you would make that comparison, Charles. So desiring to enter into the institution of marriage with a same-sex partner, male or female, isn't valid? Or it's somehow analogous to desiring to enter into a slave relationship? Come on. I think you hit the nail on the head with your remark about heterosexual privilege.

You're not making any sense, Brian. Are you suggesting that you can't have a social framework without a marriage? If you are, there is a ton of evidence to the contrary.

They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra, just for you.

But they were fucked up in their turn
By fools in old-style hats and coats,
Who half the time were soppy-stern
And half at one another's throats.

Man hands on misery to man.
It deepens like a coastal shelf.
Get out as early as you can,
And don't have any kids yourself.
(Phillip Larkin - This Be The Verse)

To many gay men and lesbian women, families are the attrocity that keeps on atroxing. Just when you think you're safe, your long lost mum or dad resurface to ban your partner from your hospital room.

You just quoted Philip Larkin -- you're my new hero!

In the spirit of Godwin, I offer a compromise: Gays can get married but only if they're Nazis.

Seriously though, gays in the military isn't as big an issue lately, I think, because
1. It doesn't impact as many people. Marriage has a lot of legal benefits that have become increasingly necessary. The military is an optional career.
2. With the clusterfuck in Iraq, who wants to be in the military? Not that many people.

I thought the Iraq War might actually dismantle DADT, simply because the military can't afford right now to drum out good men & women just because they're gay. But I apparently overestimated the intelligence of this administration.

First of all, what are you saying in this post? What does any of that have to do with the recent gay marriage decision?

Secondly, what you say about gays in the military makes no sense for three reasons. 1)It is still an issue, and if you followed the gay media at all, you would know that. Check out the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network for more information. 2)Politically, the reason why many gay rights leaders moved on from it is because they felt they'd reached a compromise with "Don't Ask Don't Tell." (An awful compromise, of course, but that doesn't seem to matter.) 3)What the heck does it have to do with marriage, the purported topic of your post?

Brian: You keep speaking about this vague "framework", but I honestly don't know what that means concretely. Please help me out here! Please name one or more legal protections that children of married parents enjoy than children of unmarried parents do not.

I second Cate - what are you trying to say? I'm surprised none of your colleagues have posted a rebuttal (guess it's Sunday). So, because marriage is akin to slavery (!), you're not interested in and don't follow this issue of the gay community. And because you don't follow gay issues and don't realize that things like gays in the military are still relevant today and are being fiercely debated, you think that gays just pick up an issue one day and drop it the next and so can't bring yourself to care about those issues. Don't blame the gay community for your own willful ignorance of these issues, Charles.

Charles- You are married, aren't you? Your myspace page says you are, anyway. Do you hold slaves, also?

Wow, his opinion really wasn't that inflammatory at all if you could really call it much of an opinion. All he said was that marriage should be abolished (which would give everyone equal rights) and found it interesting that gay folks weren't fighting for the "right" to be in the military anymore. I think on that point that *nobody* is fighting to get into the military anymore. Yeesh, everyone needs to lighten up a little.

Thanks for bringing this up, Charles.
Here's a piece you may enjoy.

Have any commenters here mentioned that the big reason why gays want and deserve the right to marry is equal PRIVILEGE. Hundreds, or maybe even thousands of privileges are available to heterosexual married couples. These privileges have to do with life, death, taxes, money, children, hospital stays, etc.

I'd like to know why Charles thinks "the institution of marriage itself is bad." It certainly works for some people. And our whole human culture is wrapped up in it. Ceremonial marriage has existed for millenia. What makes you think it would be wise to just "abolish" it? I'm honestly curious about this. It's a strange concept to me. I think people should be free to do as they choose.

And the awful "don't ask, don't tell" policy is still strongly debated and frowned upon. There are lots of gays in the military. But they lead double lives, and it sucks.

Christ, does no one read the post? He isn't comparing marriage to slavery. He just thinks marriage ought to be abolished, just as slavery was abolished.

Jamie Petersen fought for years for gay marriage and claims that because of that he deserves to be elected. We don't need gay marriage, and we certainly don't need another gay representative in government.

I am a slave to Charles's pithy perspicacity.

Jamey: First off, ceremonial marriage has not existed for millenia, at least not for anyone outside the nobility, for whom the ceremony was important for political reasons. Government endorsement and regulation of marriages between normal folk is just a few hundred years old.

More importantly, just because marriage is so central in human culture doesn't mean the government has to be involved in it. Music is central to human culture, but the government doesn't endorse and regulate music. Religion is central to human culture, but I assume you don't want the government endorsing and regulating religious beliefs.

If you really think people should be, as you write, "free to do as they choose" in this arena, then you sould support getting the government out of the marriage business.

The army should be abolished? Not rethought, not reformed, but abolished? Wow. That's Lefties Gone Wild for you. Welcome to Nonsenseville.

Satchi You're not making any sense, Brian. Are you suggesting that you can't have a social framework without a marriage? If you are, there is a ton of evidence to the contrary.

No, I'm not. See the where I wrote "I agree that marriage is not necessary to that."

David Wright: Okay, marriage HAS been around for millenia for some, hundreds of years for others. That distinction hasn't any real importance here. To mate for life is human, to seal the deal through official ceremony is normal, it's been going on for ages, and, yes, the government is all wrapped up in it.

If you want to get all libertarian on me, I say: go, man, go! I'd love for the government to get out of people's personal affairs. HOWEVER, that is not what the gay marriage issue is about. In fact, it's quite the opposite. It appears as though gay marriage supporters WANT the government involved! They WANT state approval, and they WANT the same privileges as everybody else. Civil rights, yeah? It's the gays saying to the government, hey, recognize me.

Your comment is well taken, but out of place on this issue.

Tennis stars photos here: <a href=>Tennis Stars</a>

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).