Gut Rumbles

June 18, 2003


Canada is going to take the first plunge in the western hemisphere and allow gay marriage. Of course, andrew sullivan sees this as a watershed event and a few other bloggers agree.

I remain uncertain about this idea.

Let's set my own record straight (boy, isn't THAT a pun!) When I wrote for The Red and Black, the University of Georgia student newspaper, from 1974 to 1975, I never realized that I was one of the few heterosexual people on the staff. I went to meetings, parties and out to bars with people that I didn't recognize as gay. I was a lot more naive back then than I am now, but even when I found out about the homosexual quotient on the newspaper, I didn't give a shit. I still wanted to write for them.

Nobody male ever grabbed my ass and whispered indecent propositions in my ear. Nobody tried to lure me to the wild side with promises of Wesson Oil and gerbils. To tell you the truth, I was VERY disappointed. I thought I was a pretty sexy guy back in those days. To not get ONE SINGLE HIT from ANYONE made me wonder what they didn't like about me.

The fact that I was living with a girl named Holly Beth at the time and everybody knew it might have had something to do with the way I was treated. I was treated as a writer, a member of the crew and NOT as meat.

My daughter is gay, and I am not one bit disappointed about it. She has found herself a good partner who puts up with her shit (and she has plenty, trust me) and lives a much better life than if she had hooked up with some Biker Bozo with a dick. She could have done a lot worse.

My own heterosexual marriages have been disasters, BOTH OF THEM, so I consider myself totally unqualified to pontificate on this matter. That fact is not going to stop me from pontificating (nothing ever does), but you probably need a little perspective to understand my take on the matter. Now you have it.

I don't give a good goddam about your sexual preference. That's none of my business. It's YOUR life; do what makes YOU happy. But don't demand special RIGHTS for being different. Blacks have played that idea like a violin for almost 50 years now and the result has been more alienation, more racial strife and fuckballs such as Al Sharpton, who should be in fucking PRISON, being taken seriously as a Presidential candidate.

I also wonder where we go from Gay Marriage. I have lived through a time where I have seen more common sense beaten to death by political correctness than any other generation that ever lived. We won't profile ARAB FUCKING TERRORISTS AT AIRPORTS, for crying out loud, but we'll give blacks 20 extra points (when you get 5 for a really good SAT score) to get them into the University of Michigan.

We profile in reverse and that's okay. You profile people who are in this country to KILL YOU, and that's evil.

Having been through two divorces and seen first-hand how a man fares against a woman (although I DID get custody of my daughter, but NO Child Support because I was profiled as a man)), I have a couple of questions. If gay parents adopt, how does the court award custody? How is Child Support figured? How is alimony decided?

The more I think about those questions, the more I favor gay marriage. Maybe the courts will stop "profiling" ex-husbands as the scum of the earth, guilty of whatever went wrong in the marriage and due a richly-deserved financial enema for that evil. Maybe the woman doesn't have a stacked deck in her favor anymore.

That would be a damned good thing. But I gotta wonder...

Do you really believe that "Gay Marriage" won't be twisted into something it was never meant to be?


I haven't written about this issue for the same reason you have...I just don't care. A man/woman marriage is nothing more than a legal partnership. A man/man marriage is nothing but the same.

I could care less what two people want to do with each other. "An' it hurt no one, do what thou wilt."

Posted by: GORDON on June 18, 2003 06:18 PM

I agree with that "don't hurt no one" part. But I get a really itchy feeling that this idea will make some "marriages" more special than others. I don't like that idea.

Posted by: Acidman on June 18, 2003 06:21 PM

Don't really have an opinion on it, myself, but one thing you wrote raised a eyebrow, and that's gay couples adopting.

I just have to wonder what kind of sick bastard would put a child through that kind of hell. Have they no grasp on the public school system, and how immeasurably warped a child would become, indrectly, from having gay parents?

Posted by: Mr. Lion on June 18, 2003 06:33 PM

Yayee. I don't think it matters. I'm always surprised at the stereotype that all homosexuals are lechurous beasts. (or something like that)

Divorce laws differ from state to state so I'm not sure how to even start pontificating on that question. I know that some states go to the primary caregiver option which would seem to favor women but not always.

I'm not sure that kids would be warped. Kids are cruel and well would be ridiculed for being fat, slow, disabled, having parents who are fat, ugly, disabled, different race, etc. It is always something with the warping of kids. I think kids are pretty resilient.


Posted by: Melissa on June 18, 2003 06:56 PM

Never sure when equal rights became special rights. If I don't have the rights someone else has, it ain't equal. simple.

anyway, I think it might actually work in straight men's favor. Custody, et al based on _means_, _ability and fitness as a parent_, not gender.

Most children of gay parents I know (dozens) are well adjusted, independent, intelligent, happy children, . Of course they choose to raise their children in places that are a bit more tolerant than hometown of Bachelor's Hall Va :)

(p.s. PLEASE put Al Sharpton in prison, such a charlatan!)

Posted by: Trey on June 18, 2003 06:58 PM

Look at it this way: Canada provided us with a picture of what socialized medicine would look like. The best argument AGAINST socialized medicine is, "hey, look at Canada."

Canada, the guinea pigs of the Americas.

Posted by: Mrs. du Toit on June 18, 2003 07:14 PM

Works for me, Mrs. D.

Posted by: McGehee on June 18, 2003 07:25 PM

Mr. Lion---and just how warped will a child become from being shuffled around from foster home to foster home? What they would get from the adoption is a loving, stable home. There is nothing warped about that.

Posted by: serenity on June 18, 2003 07:46 PM

I just have to wonder what I have put my kids through, and not for very long now that my kids are grown and can tell me! With all my shanigans through the years.

I am not a gay man, but a heterosexual woman. But surely, I have messed them up!

Posted by: pw101 on June 18, 2003 08:16 PM

Serenity: I speak from experience on this one as I once knew a kid who had same-sex parents. "Hell" would not begin to describe what he went through as a result of it. Ended up nearly killing himself at one point, so.. I suppose the degree of warpitude is somewhat subjective.

Posted by: Mr. Lion on June 18, 2003 09:00 PM

Sooner or later, there will be a survey of a statistically large number of children coming from gay parent homes and straight parent homes (1st marriage, blended, whatever) which will be conducted by a group trusted as unbiased by most of both supporters and opponents of gay marriage/adoption. Then, we can get a handle on whether gay parenthood is generally good for children.
I suspect it is not, as a generalization, while admitting that there must be gay couples who would be perfectly good parents. (As for gay relationships between consenting adults, it's none of my business.) We all know there are hetero people who have no business having children.
I think gay adoption should be stopped until we do get a handle on this, but I could be wrong. I just want to know the truth, and unfortunately, the truth is too politically hot to handle now.

Posted by: DaninCorbett on June 18, 2003 09:42 PM

Mr. Lion, not to get into an argument on someone else's blog but... :).. that sounds like: "All Indians walk in single file, at least the one I knew did"

I think for every 'hell' experience you give, I can give you a few dozen/hundred 'heaven' experiences.

Straight parents do some miserable things (put children in washing machines, drown them in locked cars, kill them to spite the other parent), doesn't mean straight parents shouldn't adopt.

Posted by: Trey on June 18, 2003 11:52 PM

I'm gay and I plan to have a child of my own someday. As long as my child is loved and I don't strut around my kids school hand in hand with my girlfriend, I don't believe the child would live a miserable life. I know plenty of children with gay parents and the love they have wonderful lives. They are thankful they have the parents they do instead of a dad that molests them or a mother who locks them in cars and closets. And about the marriage part, its all about religion. If we could learn to repect the fact that religion is just a belief that not everyone HAS to worship God and live by the bible, maybe people wouldn't be so judgemental on gays and think its wrong for someone to legally declare their love for someone. I just don't get what the big deal is.

Posted by: "the gay daughter" on June 19, 2003 12:28 AM

To "The Gay Daughter"...

You say you just don't get what the big deal is... Well, that being the case, I will never be able to explain it to you then.

Posted by: Bob on June 19, 2003 01:13 AM

I pretty much agree with the post with the exception of the word “preference”. The word “preference” implies choice and I don’t think that one’s sexual orientation, for the most part, is a choice. Think about it, did you ever decide what made you grow a stiff one when you got to that age? I don’t remember making a decision to be hetero, I just started crackin’ wood at any skirt with a pair of tits.

I can’t speak for women because, well, I’m not a woman, but men know that at a young age you have zero control over what starts the juices flowing. Sometimes the timing was a real bitch but that’s a whole other topic.

Posted by: Lobowalk on June 19, 2003 02:48 AM

(Gay man raises his hand)

Gay marriage means one thing to me; a simple (!) way of receiving all the legal benefits that a straight marriage bestows. And all the legal problems.

I can get the benefits through other legal mechanisms, while avoiding many of the problems. The emotional quotient is satisfied by the commitment my Husband and I have already made to each other.

A legally-recognized marriage is a moot point for me. I've already got what I need, legally and emotionally.

Posted by: Keith on June 19, 2003 11:39 AM

Trey: You're misinterpreting what I said. I wasn't drawing any conclusions about how fit a gay couple may or may not be for raising a child. I'm sure many would do a great job.

My point, however, is that said child will end up having a very painful childhood and adolescence in the public school system, should he or she have gay adoptive parents. This is not a measure of how good the parents are, it's a measure of how cruel kids can be.

Posted by: Mr. Lion on June 19, 2003 12:33 PM

Mr Lion. I guess I did misinterpret. sorry.

I would say still though it has a lot to do where you raise the child and the school you put them in and how far along society is. The elementary school were I live is very diverse, kids with two same-sex parents are not rare, have lots of support, and from my experience have little if any problems with other kids (about that issue). Which I assume would be in contrast to sending a kid to public school in rural Tennessee or something. But isn't that part of good parenting, making sure the place you live/school children attend/etc within your ability is the best possible for your child? :).

Ok, I'll stop. Just was an interesting conversation :).

Posted by: Trey on June 19, 2003 03:40 PM

The human being, generally speaking, is a fuck up waiting to happen, I think everyone can agree to that.

Can we please spare each other the tired tactic of making an argument comparing the worse case scenario to the best case scenario? Lets all be intellectually honest, and thus show interest in the best case bottom line, and make our arguments comparing median scenarios as best we can.

Example: comparing a loving homosexual couple and thier ability to competently raise a child, to a child molesting hetero couple is intellectually dishonest, unless you can show that the child molesting hetero's make up a significant percentage of hetero couples raising children, which you can't.

So let us constrain ourselves to examples which represent the medians. And the medians are..... most hetero couples are able to stay together and raise their children as best they see fit.

Now homosexual couples have no statistics to compare.... being as marriage of homosexuals is not legally recognized, nevertheless, the implication provided by the participants is not encouraging. Are there exceptions? most definitely. But I dont go looking thru dumpsters for the exception to trash making a shitty meal, nor would I look to homosexual couples and the exceptions therein to provide competent child rearing relationships.

Should Homosexuals be free to pursue thier lifestyle choices.... to a degree, that degree being way beyond abuse or harrassment. But way below government subsidization, support, and reverence.

The pendulum on homosexual issues is about 10 degrees past center, with huge momentum toward more liberal views...I expect it to reach 40 to 80 degrees before the gravity of the results of this attitude start the pendulum swinging back the other way.

Posted by: joel mackey on June 19, 2003 11:29 PM

I wrote about the "profiling fathers" issue on my own weblog -- but it sounds as though your own experiences were more visceral. For me, the matter of marriage, let alone divorce, is all theory -- I gotta get a date first.

I'm wondering, though: How would same-sex marriage be twisted into something it wasn't meant to be? I can see how this could happen with civil-union laws or any of the other "marriage lite" alternatives to same-sex marriage. ("Wow! I can't believe it's not marriage!") The legal and financial arrangements in these legal-yet-not-marital personal-union thingies -- as well as the questions of state-by-state recognition and divorce -- really would end up creating "special rights" for Gay people, and might even undermine the institution of marriage in general.

Seems to me the best way to keep that from happening is to say to same-sex couples: OK, folks, you want legal marriage, you got it. No civil unions, no legal partnership -- just regular, flat-out marriage. Same rules, same everything, no exceptions. If your church chooses to perform a marriage ceremony (like the one I attended a few years at my old church), that's fine with us. If they don't want to do it, if it's against their beliefs, well, they have a right to those beliefs and we're not going to force them, so just come on down to the justice of the peace and he'll fix you folks up.

And if Gays and Lesbians keep howling about failed relationships after that, it'll just be the nation's duty not to listen to them -- just like we don't listen when Straight people bitch and moan about their failed relationships. You have equality under the law, the state's not looking over your shoulder, so you can't legitimately blame us for your own misery anymore. Your life is now your business, you work it out.

Posted by: Tim Hulsey on June 20, 2003 02:16 AM

i really haven't decided on what side im on i can see the point of being for them, like some say they are not hurting me or anyone else, just doing what they were brought up to do, get married. But then there are bad points about why i shouldn't like i am a christian.

Posted by: Shauna on December 10, 2003 07:15 AM

Why should my partner of seven years and I be denied the same legal and economic benefits that marriage provides heterosexuals? Heterosexuals have actually made a disaster of marriage. Could it be that heteros are fearful that homos will do it better? Maybe marriage should be a ritual governed by individuals and their religious institutions, and govt. should only be involved in the civil partnerships between people. Marriage licenses issued by the govt. would not exist, but partnership agreements or civil union agreements would. Marriages would remain a ceremony governed solely by each religious institution. It is interesting to me that a heterosexual couple can be married, legally and otherwise after a drunkfest in Vegas, then legally divorced all within a 24 hour period, and our nation's top govt. officials, many religious organizations, conservatives and moderates alike, think this is a sanctity that needs protection from homosexuals. Wow! Now that's what I would call hypocrisy in its rawest form. How dare those homos try to desecrate such a beautiful institution! As we get down to it, I do not want hetero marriage. I want a legal union with my partner of seven years that will provide me with the same (not special) legal and economic benefits that heteros enjoy. Now... tell me why I should be denied these benefits?

Posted by: Nicole on February 18, 2004 10:28 AM

[In] mourning, it is better to err on the side of grief than on the side of formality.

Posted by: StoweBerns Lindsey on May 3, 2004 03:32 PM
Post a comment