I am not using this post to discuss at length my views on same sex marriage, I just read an article this morning about homosexuals who oppose same sex marriage and it interested me. As decisions are made around the globe about whether they should be allowed to marry, it was interesting to see that some who oppose could benefit from it. That is the thing about same sex marriage, the decisions are largely being made by heterosexuals but are determining what is right and wrong when it will never affect them. The opinions of those addressed below are all homosexual, unless stated otherwise.
Jonathan Soroff lives with his partner in Massachusetts (which is known for its liberal outlook) and states that because gay couples are never going to procreate maybe they shouldn’t be entitled to marriage as although it is the pursuit of equality they are not equal. And perhaps there is something good about not being equal, it shows individuality. Inequality is not bad in itself because it recognises that people have different strengths, weakness, goals and ambitions. What is wrong with inequality is when you seek to persecute those for their weaknesses or differences.
Soroff also made the point that gay marriage emulates something that has previously only been between a man and a woman. If you think about the whole marriage ceremony there are huge differences between the genders. The woman wears a white dress, is walked down the aisle by her father who gives her away and she has a bouquet of flowers which she throws to determine who will marry next. The man on the other hand has a best man who he has just had a stag night with and said goodbye to his freedom and he wears a suit. Soroff states: “I’m not going to walk down the aisle to Mendelssohn wearing white in a church and throw a bouquet and do the first dance,” which is a lovely way to encapsulate what he is trying to say, trying to copy it is almost distasteful and disturbing.
Furthermore he states that they want legal rights, not marriage rights. Legba Carrefour claims: “I’m not concerned about whether I can get married but whether I will die in the street at the hands of homophobes.” This can be seen to show that it is not their priority, though in the future they may want marriage, right now it is not urgent. With many people being beaten up just for being gay, I think the
re are more pressing issues to deal with.
Lesbians, on the other hand, have been said to be against marriage on feminist grounds as previously it ha been said that marriage has benefited men more than women. However I am not sure I like this notion, because while they may have a point it also suggests that their sexuality is political. This links back with early feminist who were “political lesbians” as they believed that sleeping with men was alike to sleeping with the enemy.
The fact that they have to campaign for same sex marriage highlights how marriage has discriminated against same sex relationships in the past, so therefore why should they want it now when it has never wanted them.
The Daily Mail columnist Andrew Pierce is said that after speaking out against gay marriage he was branded a homophobe, when he has spoken on behalf of gay rights for years. And this is merely because he believes that civil partnerships are enough. In regards to this he wrote:”We’ve got marriage, it’s called a civil partnership and I rejoice in the fact that people like me who are different from straight people can do something they can’t. I relish that.” Which I think it is lovely, it is like something that is specifically for them and their own. Pierce suggests that he is not alone in his rejection of gay marriage as he says he held a dinner party for 11 of his gay friends and only one was in favour of gay marriage.
I think whether you are in favour of gay marriage or not, it is very interesting to see theses views. I have felt that through the arguments the media has used people’s opinions who are perhaps not intelligent. And although I am not saying you need to be intelligent it almost suggests that to be against it is stupid when in actual fact that is not the case. What I don’t like about it is you can’t protect the church, you may be able to protect them for a few months, year even, but ultimately you cannot protect them forever.