If you haven’t heard about the brouhaha created by Don Cathy of Chick-fil-A then you should get around more. Mr. Cathy, the COO of the popular franchise, openly opposes gay marriage and is quite open about stating that publicly. Kudos to Mr. Cathy for taking advantage of his constitutional rights and standing up for something he believes in publicly. Especially since it is so controversial. As you can imagine the LBGT community and their supporters are up in arms. They are inviting supporters of gay rights to openly boycott the restaurant. And that is their constitutional right. Kudos to them.
Yesterday while eating a late lunch I asked my husband about what he thought about the whole debacle. He felt that it was Mr. Cathy’s constitutional right to free speech to voice his opinion and that the gay and lesbian community were wrong in asking people to boycott him. My husband isn’t anti gay, but he isn’t pro gay marriage. He feels they should have all the legal rights of a married couple but have no rights to waltz in on the sanctity of heterosexual marriage.
(Argument # 1) The sanctity of marriage?
That was defiled a long time ago. Drive-up marriage in Vegas, seventy-two hour long marriages, etc etc etc. Sorry honey, that argument doesn’t hold water. (Argument # 1 busted and buried)
(Argument # 2) Then he went on to saying that gay marriage was morally as wrong as fathers making babies with daughters.
Yes, incest is wrong. We recognize it as a moral wrong. But was it always wrong? I bet not. When humanity was little more than a handful of people here and there struggling for survival I am sure men impregnated any woman available, including their daughters. When many of those offspring were born with minor or major abnormalities, these early humans must have considered this a punishment by the creator. Did the creator not like having a father lay with his daughters? And a taboo was born. They didn’t know that it was a genetic issue. Many of our social mores, our taboos were born out of practicalities. (Argument # 2 busted and buried)
By this time my poor huz was getting irate. Dangblabbit! And he asked why on earth we were arguing about it. Arguing? We were discussing something where we both held different opinions. But then he always gets out of sorts when I shred the points he is trying to make.
(Argument # 3) Well, there have to be psychological ramifications in children who were raised by same sex couples.
Here I would have to say, may be. IT man is clearly giving his children something I cannot. The question is, is that because he is simply a different person, or because he has a penis. Hard to tell, because I am fairly certain he wouldn’t want to part with it to see if his argument held water. Now, my counter here was that far more children are being and will be raised in households with one or more abusive parents. Far far far! more children are being raised in single family households, by a struggling parent who is barely at home for them. As it stands the majority of American children are currently born to unwed mothers. More children are currently living in single parent households, in households with abusive caregivers, households of drug users, alcoholics than ever before. And that number continues to rise. How many gay parents would be there anywhere? Would the children ‘suffering’ from the psychological impact of being raised by two loving same sex parents really affect the world so severely that this right should not be afforded them? Psychological ramifications? Again, we get back to social mores, taboos, laws. It wasn’t that long ago that pregnant unwed women were coerced, even forced into giving their child away. Not that long ago, divorce was considered a moral failing. Having a child with a person from another race was a moral failing. The opinion that black people and white people were the same except for the fact that their skin and hair color was different was a moral failing. I could go on and on an on. (Argument # 3 busted and incinerated)
So called morals have been flexible throughout history. We create social mores and taboos to stabilize our idea of an effective society. Thou shalt not steal, though shalt not lie, though shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, are all rules created to maintain a stable society. A stable family, a stable clan, a stable tribe meant a higher chance of survival. Go pillage, rape, and rob the next clan, just keep your hands away from your neighbor’s stuff.
It’s all rather subjective, see?
It appears as though gays are the most recent group of individuals against whom it is acceptable to be prejudiced. Not too long prejudice against Jews was de rigueur and of course les negroes…. oh my! Now, when the LGBT groups are voicing their outrage against this government sanctioned and tolerated prejudice (Mr. Huckabee’s Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day?) they are called militant. No, apparently the rights to voice an opinion should stay with the majority. When Don Cathy and Mike Huckabee and their supporters publicly voice their opinions and exercise their constitutional rights, the LGBT community should quietly accept their lot and shut up.
My husband and I do not see eye to eye on this I am sad to say. I don’t see what the big deal is when a loving couple raises their children, even though the parents may be called Dad and Papa, or Mom and Mimi. My husband feels that they should get the same legal rights, and benefits as a married couple, just not get married. I think that is a poorly thought out, knee jerk reaction.
I am not gay. I don’t know yet if my kids are gay, so my support of the LGBT community doesn’t stem from a personal involvement. It is simply a statement of human decency.