Gay vs Homo debate on uniqueness of Traditional Marriage

The following letter appeared in the Mailbag of the Independent Gay Forum, Friday, Nov 05, 2k4. Rather than use my monikker, the Editors published the piece as "Unsigned." I have remedied that below.

Against 'Gay Marriage'

The root of opposition to so-called "gay marriage," in this homo's view, is its utter irrationality. There's visceral nonsense in the demand to deny the uniqueness and distinctive features of a one-man/one-woman union. Two other kinds of intimate one-to-one unions also exist; they have some similarities and analogous features to marriage, but they are not marriage. Two-women unions are different from both marriages and two-men unions. The differences are clear; the attempt to erase the differences is dishonest and makes for unprincipled and ridiculous law.

There are similarities between all three of these different kinds of unions, but there are important constitutive differences as well. Why two women would want to equate their own lovingly coupled uniqueness and qualitatively different kind of union with that of two men is beyond me.

In the 2004 elections, the public reacted with a viscerally clear logic to what the "gay" ideology and its orgs have tried to foist on us all. The public just knew how absurd the agenda is. What's more the very word "gay" (as Christopher Isherwood told us long ago) makes us sound like "bliss ninnies." But the agenda makes us sound totally absurd. That's why I remain a homo, but not a Gayoid locked into a Gayvoid attempt to erase the differences. -Owlb

You can link to my "Unsigned" letter in IGF by clicking the title of this blog entry. Once you arriave at the Mailbag page, you must scroll down until you find my letter where "Gay Marriage' is not enclosed in quotes, unfortunately. I did not develop on this occasion my agreement with the proposed Federal Constitutional Amendment on defining Marriage according to the traditional norm. At the same time, I agree with President Bush on the Federal principle of leaving other legislation to the States, where it belongs; and I agree that the States should each recognize what exists and what they can't change - namely, 2women intimate unions, and 2men intimate unions. Recognition is based on honesty; lack of recognition is based on dishonesty regarding the structurations of society. Superior state recognitions would investigate whether 2women unions need special provisions added to the basic recognition. After all, 2women unions include two women who have medical and other body-physiognomic needs, as well as social considerations against rape and several other considerations. Some of these perhaps should be provided in added clauses of a basic Recognition law. Perhaps not. The legislatures in each case should study it, if competent. Thus, different States may have different findings and enact legislation that meets the basic honesty rule of Recognition but adds or does not add special provisions for the 2women in relationship. At the very least, such basic Recognition at least precludes unions that involve more than two women at set an age of union requirement, and that development would more likely lead less exploitation of women and younger women and girls. After the several States deal with 2women intimate unions (maybe the women involved want them called "Lesbian unions - the name in law can go several ways - but "civil union" is absurd, encompassing only one feature of the relationship being recognized), after that Recognition of 2women intimate unions, then comes the more difficult and time-consuming task of possible or not recognizing 2men unions, restrictions to 2men and not multple-party arrangements which would destroy the level of intimacy that the State wants to Recognize, and restrictions as to the age of the men involved.

As the States slowly come to their similar but different legislative conclusions, the newly recognized, regulated, and restircted provisions should also spell out the responsiblity of persons availing themselves of these arrangements to society in these special regards. With the meeting of responsiblities, come whatever rights and entitlements beyond basic Recognition that the State grants because the people of that State thru their State Representatives and State Senators have decided to make life more livable and fair for all citizens and residents. The codes should be written so that schools may not use Recognition as a mandate to teach "homosexuality" in the schools, nor to forbid religious expression of dissent against the State's granting of Recognition, etc. - Owlb