Gay Marriage - Sorry...I Got Angry

[Hank Green]

I don't get angry easily. I have a very broad view of how people should live their lives and very few hard beliefs of my own. I find it very easy to see both sides of an argument. I like arguing, don't get me wrong, but I can do it from either side of most of the big controversial issues of our day without inconvenience. Arguing, for me, is like playing tennis with a friend. You don't keep score, you don't really care, and you do it until you feel like doing something else.

That is not the case when it comes to the rights of the people of my country.

Today I tweeted my frustration about New York State's inability to pass legislation that would make it legal for same-sex couples to marry. I then noticed a significant downtick in my followers. Putting two and two together, there were a bunch of people who saw my frustration of intolerance as a personal attack. I immediately (in anger, I might add) asked everyone who did not believe that all loving, monogamous couples should be able to get married to unfollow me.

This, of course, stirred up a flurry of re-tweets as well as a good bit of intelligent and non-hostile debate, for which I am extremely thankful. Since twitter isn't exactly a fantastic place to hold a debate (especially when you like to be verbose) I decided to post a bit here at nerdfighters.com.

There were a lot of different comments. I'm going to start with what I see as the most legitimate and them move to the more preposterous points.

1. Hank, by asking these people to unfollow, you're essentially shutting down the lines of communication. Do you think that's wise?
You're right, it's extremely unwise, and I am sorry. I'm angry. Angry people often do unwise things. I have no other excuse.

2. The people you're dealing with might be very young and not have had a chance to truly consider the beliefs they've been instilled with.
Another excellent point. Again, I pleed anger as my defense. It was stupid.

3. "Isn't it kind of intolerant to be angry at people for standing by their beliefs/religion?"
If there's anything I'm OK being intolerant of, it's intolerance. I'm not a pacifist, my tolerance isn't unlimited. I don't think there's nothing worth fighting for. The rights and equality of the people of my country is where I put my foot down. And I don't care where the intolerance springs from. If your relgion has a problem with 10% of the population of my country, then I have a problem with your religion and maybe you should examine your position as well. If you don't think you can discard a part of your religion because your religion is infallable, then you have not studied the history of your religion. Every religion is filled with examples the religion realizing it is wrong, and changing as a result. If you don't agree with your religion, don't think there's no room for change. The most loving, kind and tolerant people I know are Christians.

4. Believing that gays shouldn't marry isn't the same as being intolerant of gays.
Actually, I think it's exactly the same thing. You're saying that you don't have a problem with them, but that they shouldn't have access to the same institutions as you because they're different. You're saying that you don't hate them, but that they don't deserve the same rights that the rest of us have. People said the same thing about segregation and even slavery. Take a deeper look at your feelings, or the feelings of the people who have created this controversy. Do you really think that it comes from a place of love? Or does it come from a place of fear?

In conclusion, I think that marriage is fantastic. I think it is SO fantastic. I think it's a powerful and worthy institution. ANd I think it's disgusting that we are not allowing a huge portion of our population to participate in that institution. It makes me angry, it makes me sad, and it makes me ashamed. I'm sorry for cutting people out, I want this to be a conversation, but I don't want to portray this as a political disagreement that we need to debate. That's not what it is. This is, fundamentally, the denial of rights to a section of our population because of who they are. Calling it anything else, to my ears, is just playing pretend.

[Rachel Comarella]

"The most loving, kind and tolerant people I know are Christians."

I'm so glad that you've managed to find Christians this tolerant, because I've had difficulty with that in my own life. I was baptised Catholic and raised in the faith by my extremely devout parents. I never missed a single weekend of Mass until I got to college, and I have been in Catholic schools all my life, including the college I am now attending. My family has always been very good friends with our parish priests, to the point where the pastor comes to all of my birthday parties.

Here is my problem: I am bisexual. I have come out to most of my friends, and to my brother and his girlfriend (his girlfriend later came out to me, which was unexpected, to say the least), but I have not come out to my parents or to anyone in my church. I didn't really even come out to most people until after high school because I was afraid of the ramifications of open bisexuality in a Catholic high school. In fact, someone I know who professes themself to be a kind and loving and understanding Catholic, once told me to my face that they believed that bisexuals were simply crazed, sex-addicted maniacs who would get there satisfaction from the family dog, if need be. This kind of intolerance sickens me, but more importantly, it saddens me. For a faith that calls itself "universal," (yes, that's what the word "catholic" means), Catholics sure are exclusive.

Anyway, I guess I just want to say that people need to start actually believing in what they say they believe in. Catholics say they believe in an all-loving God who created us all equal, but they shun homosexuality. Being raised in the faith, I can understand (but don't necessarily agree with) the reasoning behind the official church standing on it, but not for the stand that the church's memebers take on it. Most Catholics aren't aware of the actual Church teaching on homosexuality, which is far more accepting than most of the Catholics that I know. Americans say they believe that "all men are created equal" and that everyone has the "certain unalienabl rights" to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Are we really the "land of the free"? Or are we just a country of decepticons who are trying to impress someone (God only knows who) in all the wrong ways?

[Iain]

Surely it's possible to think someone's actions or way of life is wrong without hating them or "being intolerant"? To use a less contentious example, I think copying music etc for even friends is wrong, but others argue that it does no harm. I very easily hold this belief without hating or being intolerant of people who do copy music. However, that doesn't mean I would support a change in laws to allow them to do so.

[Beatriz]

It is unconstitutional to keep homosexuals from marrying.
America was founded on the separation of church and state. If a church wants to deny a marriage because of their beliefs, then I really can't argue against them. Otherwise, nothing should stand in the way of a couple who wants to spend the rest of their lives together.

The arguement reminds me of John's "I am not a pornographer" video, where a group of parents try to ban his book from the school, even if the other parents are OK with the book and even if it won't affect their lives.

Maybe I'm odd, but I'm fifteen and am over-analytical of any belief or idea thrown at me. I have trouble understanding why someone would accept things as others tell them, at whatever age.

[Jeanne]

"If your relgion has a problem with 10% of the population of my country, then I have a problem with your religion"
Very good point, can't help but agree.
I have a very tolerant circle of friends, and don't have to interact with people who'd disagree with your post on a daily basis. Sometimes I forget how much hate/fear there still is in the world, especially the parts we consider "modern".

[Stichomythic]

I always subscribe to John Stuart Mill's harm princple.

[Emily Manns]

I just don't understand people. I'm onlt eighteen, but I've already gotten into the habit of analyzing things, trying to figure out and understand why things are the way they are. I really don't understand why people are so prejudice. There is no cause for it. I'm not gay myself, but a lot of my friends are, and I have never once thought about them any differently. Your sexual orientation does not change the kind of person you are, and if anything, having more homosexuals in the world is better! Do you have any idea how overpopulated the world is? We're running out of resources and space, and it's all because men and women keep coming together and poppin' out more baby makers! Gay couples usually adopt children, which would solve one of our problems with children that are abandoned by their familys, or who couldn't be supported by the family's they had and were forced into orphanages and foster homes.
Also, I'd like to say that marriage seems to be overated. So much money spent on a huge ceremony, probably putting you into debt, and all so you can say that you're married. Why not just be married? Do we really need these extravagant weddings to prove it? I say that if gay people can't get married, then no one should get married! Just be together, love each other, and if you really have to, put a quarter into the little machine at the grocery store and give the one you love a beautiful plastic ring. If you really lover each other, then you don't need to spend a lot of money.
Basically, I think that anyone has the right to get married, but I still don't think marriage is necessary^_^

[Autumn Rose]

Despite the entire post being interesting and thought-provoking, the third point struck me in particular. Many people stand by their religion when it comes to hot button issues such as gay marriage, but many of those people are not truly thinking about why they are standing up for that particular aspect of their religion.

We cannot believe in certain standards simply because our religion tells us to, but think about how those views will affect those around us. I believe many people that are against same-sex marriage due to religious/moral reasons are not actively aware that they are practicing a form of discrimination. We tend to behave like sheep, following the herd of others like ourselves due to the simplicity of this lifestyle.

Being aware of others "complexly", as the Green brothers often refer to it, is not an easy way of living. It requires a constantly open mind, and it is honestly easier to stay close-minded. We cannot define ourselves by a religion just because we were raised that way, but must make our own informed decisions in regards to the world around us.

In order for a flaw to be realized, in a religion or otherwise, someone must first go against the grain.

[Seth]

Interesting discussion.

My perspective on the gay marriage issue is from the legal standpoint rather than the moral/religious. I am personally for same-sex marriage but against the pseudo-marriage that many states try to pass to placate both parties. Why?

First of all, as many people have pointed out, in American society marriage entitles people to certain legal rights. For example, marriage grants rights to assets in the event of death and entitlement to due process in the event of a divorce. It also binds both parties with certain obligations. For instance, in some states the court may hold you liable for continued financial support of your ex-spouse if you decide to bail out.

Having all of the good with none of the bad isn't equitable. Washington State will let same-sex marriages dissolve by filing a simple mail-in form with the state. They finally stepped up and placed a few limits (no children and below a certain threshold in joint assets). If these unions are so easy to form and dissolve, what's stopping people from casually doing so for convenience. People dissolving same-sex unions should be entitled to all the misery and suffering as married folks. All joking aside, marriage is meant to be entered carefully with much introspection and consideration. It is meant to be a life-long commitment. If I can get 'married' with the knowledge that, if it doesn't work out, I can mail a form to the state and get out of the relationship, how's that really more committed than just dating?

Second, we have hundreds of years of solid case history and statutes. States wishing to extend these same rights to same-sex couples simply need a really short law that redefines "marriage" to include same-sex unions. Doing so would bring those couples under the umbrella of family court and all of the laws and legal precedence that has already been worked out.

So we don't want to call it marriage for moral/religious reasons? Are some people saying they're fine with granting the same rights and responsibilities, just don't call it marriage? What does changing the name of a thing have to do with changing the nature of that thing? Granting all the rights except the right to the title "married" is fooling yourself. So is it about the definition of the word or about the rights of a group of people?

So the Bible says so, huh? Well the Church used to claim that the bible said that black people had dark skin because God had marked them to match the blackness of their souls. Can we please agree that using religion to justify hate and injustice is wrong?

Requiring same-sex couples to come together under some other form of union is scarily similar to some of the early civil rights bills. "Oh, all right. Let's let them people have access to education but don't you dare sit none of dem kids in the same room as my lil Johny!" (Ok maybe a bit dramatic, but still...)

Most of all is that I had hoped we were moving beyond so much bigotry in this country. I guess it's refreshing that (for the most part) we're past the racial hatred but it's sad that sexual orientation and religion seem to be fair game. Apparently Gays and Muslims are fair targets.

That makes me deeply sad and a bit ashamed of our culture.

[Roger Hoyt]

@Guy
I see your point. I'd have to say that I really wouldn't like to be treated as a second class citizen. It's bad enough as it is. While, I may not necessarily agree with gay/lesbian marriage. I have to say that I agree with Craig, that it's not my place to decide who can or can't. Which is why I'm remaining neutral on this. It's something that's going to happen eventually, so why waste my effort fighting against it? Basic rights have been denied by people for many years. Yes I do think it's wrong, and my belief on gay/lesbian marriage is do mostly to my upbringing in a christian family. This is why I choose not to fight against it, or for it. Either way, both sides will hate you if you do either. Heck, they probably hate me anyway, because I don't see eye to eye with either side. But, they'd hate me even more if I took a side. I'm merely offering different points of view here.

I can see your point on why they may need a license to get married. The health care system here is screwed up anyway, heck, what isn't screwed up here? Politics, Healthcare, Insurance, Wages, You name it, it's all pretty much screwed up. Years ago, doctors did what ever they thought best to save lives when they had a chance. Nowadays, you have to get permission and a bunch of bs. Too much red tape garbage going on nowadays. Things used to be so much simpler.

[Roger Hoyt]

Ah, I see,that makes sense then.