Transitive Verbs and Gay Marriage

[Misunderestimator]

Transitive Verbs and Gay Marriage

A fantasy in which our culture gets some real values
By DAN BARDEN
Thursday, August 24, 2006 - 3:00 pm

There are a lot of public questions that puzzle me—abortion, U.S. military might, welfare—but I have never been much puzzled by gay marriage. In fact, as the rest of the country, particularly my adopted state of Indiana, goes fairly insane on the question, my puzzlement is about why I’m not puzzled: What are all these people getting so exercised about? Personally, I regard marriage the way other people regard extreme sports. Climbing Everest, for example, is a harrowing, sometimes horrifying challenge, and many people don’t make it, but I’m not interested in stopping anyone from trying. My attitude is: be my guest. God bless you. Are you going to eat the other half of that sandwich? As far as I’m concerned, anyone who wants to race the Tour de France, whether he’s Lance Armstrong or a fat CPA from Akron, deserves his own team and TV show.

Then, a few months ago, I was at my local library with my 2-year-old son. He had dashed toward his favorite space—the combined reading area/Lego playground—and when I caught up to him, I found myself in the company of two men, each about five years younger than me, with two boys, one about 18 months and the other about 4 years old. My son was adopted from Eastern Europe, but I hardly ever mention this anymore. He’s so clearly my son. Still, when I see children who, for some reason, don’t quite sync with their parents, I have to repress the urge to say, Me too. Me too. Isn’t it wonderful? Usually, this happens with Asian children and European parents, but this time it was something else: these guys had that well-groomed-but-not-so-fashionable Midwestern gay thing going on, and the boys themselves were clearly from two different parts of the world. The 18-month-old was dark with fine features like my son, and his older brother looked Central American.

Even saying hello felt awkward. Do these guys think I disapprove of them? But I can’t approve of them without calling attention to their situation, which would seem rude and invasive. Maybe I’m just stupid, but I had to imagine my introduction would be something like: “Hey, aren’t you a gay couple with two children from different parts of the world? I’m a straight man whose son is from a different part of the world too.” Lame. Beyond lame. Supernaturally lame.

----------------------------

A must read, continued here: http://www.ocweekly.com/news/news/transitive-verbs-and-gay-marriage/25715/


Cross-posted in GD: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2000012&mesg_id=2000012

[NMDemDist2]

1. wonderful! thanks for posting n/t

[dipsydoodle]

2. If I actually noticed two guys with a child or children

who didn't look ill at ease with them I'd just assume they were brothers, friends or maybe gay. Wouldn't even occur to me to ask which. Maybe we're more chilled out in the UK.

[Maat]

3. I so understand, in the sense that ..

I joyously coo'd over the new couple's baby (in our church), saying, "Isn't it great? We 'dopted my Beloved Daughter ... she's going to be ten this year! Congrats!" Everyone knew - they were the new GAY COUPLE (I belong to a welcoming and affirming church), and they had talked about the adoption. The lady behind me piped up, "Mine is going to be 25 next month!" We were all beaming - we were so proud. Sometimes you just can't hide your joy.

[progmom]

4. recommended

great article!

[Sapphocrat]

5. Mt. Everest? Marriage? It's a tossup!

"a harrowing, sometimes horrifying challenge, and many people don’t make it"
:rofl:

Good piece!

[NMMNG]

6. Very nice article

Except for this sentence: If we’re going to exclude people from legal entitlements or basic civil rights, I say exclude the people who aren’t raising children.

:wtf:

[Sapphocrat]

7. Well, that would be OK...

Think of the backlash if we were to rescind all "legal entitlements or basic civil rights" of straight couples who can't produce, or don't want to.

Gay folks wouldn't even have to fight for rights anymore -- all the sterile, erectile-dysfunctional, tubes-tied***, vasectomized married people would do it for us!


*** Hey, do you suppose if we took all marriage-related rights away from women who'd had their tubes tied, they'd file a tubal litigation? *rimshot*

[NMMNG]

8. Under their own arguments we should already do that, to an extent

Think of the backlash if we were to rescind all "legal entitlements or basic civil rights" of straight couples who can't produce, or don't want to.

The wingnuts who crow that "the purpose of marriage is to produce children" should be held to their word. If a couple seeking to be married is proven to be incapable of having children for any reason their request for a marriage license should be denied. Once a couple has stopped having children and all of their existing children have reached adulthood their marriage must be dissolved. No adults past childbearing age may be married. If a married couple fails to produce children within five years of their wedding date their marriage will be dissolved.

Tell them to put that in their pipes and smoke it.



BTW, here's a rimshot smiley for you:

[Misunderestimator]

9. True...

I looked at that the way Sapphocrat did though... at least it isn't discriminating against only gay people. It would be a hell of an easier battle if childless straight couples had to fight for marriage rights too.