That article and my parents

[danaeris]

My father read the article and said,


The Village Voice article was pretty disappointing though. Stripped of its verbiage, it is just saying, gay marriage is okay because, well, because we say it is.


My mother actually UNDERSTOOD the article, but is annoyed about the fact that the meaning of marriage is drifting away from man/women/religious/maybe children. She doesn't mind civil unions being broken up piecemeal, and she doesn't mind religious people doing as they please as far as religious unions. But she thinks Marriage, husband, wife, etc. should continue to mean one man, one women, religious joining, with the subtext of bearing children.

What she did say that really disappointed me was:

I'll agree that the govts. of the world should never have
gotten involved with marriage....it should have remained for the
church/synagogue/whatever to deal with.

Good so far... But then she took this sharp right turn.

We're finding out that this one
ruling is opening a whole kettle of fish. Will clergy be *forced* to marry
those whose union isn't recognized by that religion? Will certain things
which are currently illegal (adult/child relationsips, for instance) become
legal because the gay lobby has gotten very good at pushing their hidden
agendas? The list goes on.

Notably my father also mentioned the possibility of the government forcing clergy to marry same sex couples or groups. That's ridiculous! If the Canadian government DID try to do that, they'd be fools for trying. There are clergy who would quite happily marry same-sex couples and/or groups. Likewise, the ruling is about LEGAL marriages, not religious, and what the religious clergy do has nothing to do with the ruling.
And I'm just appalled that she would suggest that the next step in the (duhn duhn duhn) Gay Lobby's Hidden Agenda would be pedophilia. Um, hell NO. Pedophiles will never have enough support to get pedophilia legalized (thank goodness).

So when I told my mother that I was insulted by her implication that the gay lobby would ever be in favor of pedophilia, she said:

Why would you be offended? I live in Canada but I'm not a member of
the government so when someone says something I don't agree with about the
Canadian government, why would I be offended?

Now, is she saying, "You're not gay so why is that statement offensive?"
Or is she saying,
"You're not an activist for gay rights, so the statement should not be offensive."

Opinions?

Comments

[im-funsized.livejournal.com]

Arg. When are people going to understand that although marriage is traditionally a religious practice, the government decided to give married people special rights. These rights are the primary goal of same sex unions. These unions being a religious practice is between them and their clergy.

No offense, but your parents are totally wrong on this issue.

[danaeris.livejournal.com]

According to my father, who may or may not be full of shit, in Canada (which is where the ruling being discussed occurred), same-sex couples already could get full legal rights, but it wasn't called a marriage. Thus, it was just the semantics that were being ruled about.

Whether that is true or not, I'm not sure. I didn't really think about these things when I lived in Canada, so I'm not really aware of what's been going on up there...

[auros]

My understanding from the articles I read in the two days immediately following the ruling: In some provinces couples could get civil unions, in others not. A lower court had already directed the federal government to pass some kind of law formalizing things so that gay couples could get the same legal rights as marriage. The gov't balked, and the top court said, the hell with you then, gay couples can get marriage licenses.

[agnosticoracle.livejournal.com]

The clergy being forced to marry same sex couples is a red herring if ever there was one! Clergy can't be forced to marry anyone. A minister or priest can refuse to perform a ceremony for any or no reason. The only recourse a person has is to complain to someone higher up in the chruch hierarchy.

[auros]

The thing is, the slippery-slopers are right in some sense -- sexual liberation has progressed from unmarried hets, to gays, to "fringe" things like poly, bi, bdsm, etc. And it has done so in part because once the one thing seems OK, the next thing seems slightly more OK too...

What the conservatives don't understand is that we're still capable of using consent as a "bright line" boundary between consenting adult sex that happens to make conservatives uncomfortable, and non-consenting things like pedophilia or bestiality.

[angelbob.livejournal.com]

and non-consenting things like pedophilia or bestiality

Actually, in Pennsylvania, you can already get married at 14. The Amish do it.

And the problem with pedophilia and consent is that the whole "statutory rape" thing is pretty weird in the first place. Where's the boundary? Why does it have nothing to do with the maturity of the person in question? Why is it (in some states) limited only to girls, not boys?

Calling some forms of (current legal defn of) pedophilia nonconsensual is more than slightly weird. Because frequently, in a strictly literal sense, they *are* consensual. As with drunk people, it's just a matter of deciding if they're allowed to give consent. And as with drunk people, the laws are just weird on the topic.

[auros]

I actually agree that the line for defining the age of consent is fuzzy, and I think we definitely need to write such laws so that even if 15/30 is Officially Not OK, 15/18 is still allowed. Nonetheless, it seems clear to me (though I acknowledge it may be possible to disagree) that there is something wrong with, to return to the previous example, a 30-year-old taking advantage of a naïve 15-year-old. I'll grant that some 15-year-olds may not be all that naïve, and there probably are even some cases of savvy 15-year-olds taking advantage (in some sense) of immature 30-year-olds.

Nonetheless, age is the best stand-in for "maturity" that we have, and I think it's worth laying out a bright-line standard on this issue. If we want to leave some gray area in which things have to be decided on a case-by-case basis -- say, age difference of five years or less -- then I'm fine with that. But I do think we need something.

[angelbob.livejournal.com]

Sure. But that's the problem, really. Because a bright-line difference must be accepted by "your" entire side. "Your" side, like mine, is including the vast majority of poly/bi/gay/freaky folks, at least from the conservative point of view, which is what we're talking about here.

There's a really good one against, say, rape and date rape. Consent, as you say, makes a good bright line. They're right, however, that gay and pedophile rights activism has been closer in the past. Did you know they used to let NAMBLA march in the pride parades, once upon a time? And there's also just not a good single place which everybody agrees is *too* far. There are states that allow underage relationships as long as both participants are within two years of each other, for instance, but that's state-by-state.

Anyway. Yeah. I'm just saying that this issue lacks an obvious point of agreement.

[auros]

this issue lacks an obvious point of agreement

Right, but that's not a problem related to things like gay marriage. We already had that problem, as you pointed out: the age of consent varies from state to state, and many people would argue that it's too low in some states. (I believe it's 13 in WV, for having sex with or getting married to somebody of any age.)

Yes, I am aware of the NAMBLA thing, and I'm glad that most mainstream gays have disassociated themselves from that.

In any case, I agree that this is a difficult point, but I still think logic is on our side. The vast majority of people with non-mainstream sexualities still agree on consent as a useful line, and agree that we should have some kind of law defining age of consent. That we don't have unanimity on what the age of consent should be, in no way differentiates us from the mainstream.

[danaeris.livejournal.com]

Yeah. The bright line isn't so bright.

I personally am in favor of graduated underage relationships... something like the 2 year age difference rule you just mentioned. The hard line is cruel... I mean, high school lovers can suddenly be committing a crime when one of them has a birthday. It doesn't make any sense.

I think as much as a 4 year difference would be justifiable, since high school freshmen have been known to date high school seniors, leading to the same issue as outlined above.

I guess the point, though, is that these graduated lines of maturity-based consent have precedent that have nothing to do with the queer movement. And the rule changes aren't even remotely specific to the queer movement. They are something relevant and useful to all sexual orientations.

As for bestiality... I know someone who believes animals are capable of consent. I'm skeptical, but willing to hear his arguments. I think the quote from dinner at a sushi restaurant is, "If a bird-of-prey thinks you're raping it, it'll let you know quite promptly, thank you very much." Going back to my friend who believes that bestiality is not rape, he claims that you can tell if the animal isn't into it/doesn't like it and thus the animal is or isn't consenting based on that.

[angelbob.livejournal.com]

I mean, high school lovers can suddenly be committing a crime when one of them has a birthday. It doesn't make any sense.

Heh :-) Been there, done that. She got to call me "jailbait" for a few months. It was very cute.

As for bestiality

You'll pardon me if, as a matter of principle, I don't get into this one. I can understand abstract arguments for either side, so the only way I'd be comfortable taking a side is based on empirical evidence. And y'know, there are some kinds of empirical evidence I don't need to personally collect.

[auros]

I suspect that most of the animals subject to bestiality -- dogs, cows, and sheep primarily -- are often submissive towards humans (esp familiar humans), and therefore the "if it doesn't like it, it'll hurt you" rule doesn't apply.

Furthermore, if my eight-year-old niece is incapable of consent, a dog sure as hell isn't. My eight-year-old niece is rather more intelligent than a dog, thank-you very much.

[danaeris.livejournal.com]

Your point with the eight year old niece occurred to me, but I'm not sure its valid. Because intelligence COMPLICATES things. Horny animals are willing to hump anything. I seem to recall someone's rabbit who kept on trying to screw their cats. Alas, a cabbit was never born of the union. Why do you think intelligent folk are more fucked up psychologically? Because intelligence makes things more complicated. An animal's simplicity may in fact change that.

On the other hand, your submissive argument is much more interesting. Because I am certainly a believer that some submissive, mature adults are not capable of consent in certain situations. Some submissives don't know how to set hard limits or say no. And I'd certainly believe that, for instance, a dog is like that with its owner.

In the end, I'm not worried about consent so much with animals. I think consent is a human issue. I'm much more worried about cruelty. And I haven't the foggiest idea if bestiality is cruel to the animal. If it weren't for the way chimps go around screwing everything that moves (and some things that don't), I'd say that it was cruel because it tricks the animal into thinking that it is breeding. *shrug* Since I'm not interested in bestiality, I won't worry about it for myself. And I don't see it coming up as a legal issue anytime in the next few decades.

[auros]

I disagree. The whole point of "age of consent" is: Willingness != Consent. A horny 13-year-old boy might be willing to screw his 35-year-old teacher, but that doesn't make it OK.

[danaeris.livejournal.com]

Why is it not OK? I view it as not ok because the kid may regret it afterwards for a wide variety of reasons. But regret is a result of intelligence. Animals don't have regret.

[auros]

It's not OK because there is simply some level of intellectual maturity under which it is impossible to give consent. And as I said earlier, age is the best stand-in for maturity that we have. (I personally think there are some people who remain too immature to consent properly, through their entire lives, but there's not much we can do about that.)

As for regret, that's not at all useful for defining consent, as it's totally subjective, can be lied about easily, and in any case, people regret obviously-consensual sex on a quite regular basis. (Also, I'm not convinced that animals don't have something analagous to regret.)

[digitalsidhe.livejournal.com]

"Why would you be offended by someone saying nasty things about the Foobarians?" is a classic rhetorical tactic, mostly used by those engaging in "witch-hunt"-style inquiries. One of the notable characteristics of a "witch hunt" (whether the "witches" be Witches, other religious heretics, Communists, queers, or some other group) is that the target group cannot be readily distinguished from the rest of society ("good Christians", "capitalist/patriotic Americans", heterosexuals, or whatnot, in the foregoing cases). This means there's a lot of energy expended on trying to root out those who are in the target group... and it also means that smearing an opponent with the stigma of possibly being in that group is a devastating tactic, since they can't prove that they're not.

The underlying subtext of "Why would you be offended?" is "Only one of them would be offended by this. You're not one of them, are you?"

"Gosh, Mom, would you not be offended if someone said that all black people are lazy, shiftless, no-good, lying inferior beings?" (If she wouldn't, then there are bigger problems going on here...) "And yet, you're not worried that someone will think you're secretly black. People can be offended at things simply because they're wrong and hateful."

[danaeris.livejournal.com]

Yeah... now I just have to decide if I want to take the wide eyed innocent stance or if I want to say, because I'm bisexual and almost all my friends are also queer. Because the Big Bad Gay Lobby is made up of folk I've met or even know well.

[auros]

I think I'd simply apply the (excellent) argument he provided, comparing it to a situation with a more obvious trait like skin-color.

[lawbard.livejournal.com]

Interesting to see that she picked two impossible things to fear as right around the corner. The government CANNOT force clergy to marry people - it lacks the power as a matter of constitutional law. Of course, the government could force a justice of the peace to marry same sex couples, because the JOP is a government employee.

As to pedophilia...legally it'll never work because kids as a matter of law cannot give consent. Someone should tell her it will never work.

And I think she's saying the former.

Gay Lobby's Hidden Agenda...what is she, a conspiracy theorist? Shouldn't she be distrusting the Bush administration's secret agenda for Israel or something?

And if she gets convinced that the gay lobby has hidden powers of pushing...remind her that the executive and legislative branches are both currently dominated by religious right extremists, and with two Supreme Court retirements expected, the Supreme Court will be dominated by the religious right...as Bush's current federal court appointments dominate the federal circuits. So the can of fish is likely to be a small tin of sardines at best!

[danaeris.livejournal.com]

Apples. Oranges. United States. Canada.

[auros]

I thought about pointing this issue out to him, but the two things are actually related -- SCOTUS's Lawrence decision did imply that a sodomy law specifically targeting gays was an equal protection violation, thus it may be that somebody at a high level in the federal courts will soon rule that marriage laws excluding gays constitute a similar violation.

But it is true that the situation of the executive branch is very different in the US versus in Canada. And the US executive branch is working very hard on packing the courts. :-(

[lawbard.livejournal.com]

ahwoops. For some reason I thought her family was talking about US law/decisions and the like.

I'madork:P

[danaeris.livejournal.com]

um, no. There has been no US decision or law.

[lawbard.livejournal.com]

yeah, there was a recent US Sct decisions where a Texas sodomy statute was struck down as violating the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment. Lawrence v. Texas, decided June 26th.

[danaeris.livejournal.com]

This entire discussion has been about marriage law and civil unions. There has been no recent law or ruling in the US on that topic.

[auros]

See my earlier comment. Lawrence does have implications for marriage law, because the ruling included discussion of Equal Protection issues. Or it least it could, if the courts decide to interpret it that way.

[kaidevis.livejournal.com]

>>> Opinions? <<<

[Standard boilerplate text: Keep in mind, you asked for my opinions. They're worth exactly what you paid for them (Jack Schitt), and you're just as free to use them as to toss them out---I can't possibly know all the factors involved, so this may or may not apply to all factors involved. Use, borrow, adapt, or outright plagiarize whatever you want of this if you like it, otherwise don't. Same page now? Okay, good...]

Drop it. Don't worry about it. Don't get offended.

From what you share here, they seem narrowminded and say some outrageously prejudiced things. But so what? They're your parents, and that's all that it is. You're not required to convert them to your way of thinking, and they're not required to make you understand theirs. I find it noble whenever people can bridge gaps like this, but given your own communication issues (especially when you get emotional or frustrated) and the narrowmindedness I see here, I would have to seriously suggest just dropping it---for now, even if now is just a day or three.

It can be revisited later, even if later just means replying to the e-mail in a few days or weeks instead of today or tomorrow. It might give you time to seriously think about how you would word these things for your parents, and which ones might get the best reactions and help them see where you see them as holding unenlightened views of human relationships. Not gay, not straight, not bi, not religious, not atheist, not childbearing, not childless---just relationships, period, end of story.

You seem to be coming from a viewpoint where you place importance on the relationship. They seem to be coming from a viewpoint where they place more importance on the humans involved and what those humans do and believe.

[Tangent: It might be worth noting that there is a LIE withing all beLIEfs, and that "Belief System" abbreviated is B.S. This applies just as much to your own B.S. as to anyone else's B.S.]

You could use logic to break apart their fears, and it would be relatively easy from the looks of it. The "What's next, government *forcing* us to do this?" statement is one of the most perfect examples of "slippery slope" that I've ever seen.

Think on it all for a while. Then drop it and do something else (for five minutes, a day, a week, a year) and forget about it. Then try to come at it from a fresh angle.

And be careful not to pit yourself "againt" their position. You both want the same thing, as is clear from your mother's first statement. But her "kettle of fish" is full of fear and fallacy, which makes it easy for you to take that as their position. Work from the ground you have together, and show them how you view the world, and how it intersect with their views.

Most of all, I think it would be wise to keep in mind that there may not be a resolution. They might not be able to come around. In that case, see if you can settle for lesser goals: More tolerance on their part, fewer obvious logical fallacies in their speech and thought, things like that. If you can't find a resolution, the smaller goals at least make it more pleasant to deal with your parents for the rest of your life and you never know if one of the lesser goals is the key to unlock what your bigger aims at understanding are.

Some people find benefit in looking at tasks such as this as a game with small victories all along the way. You employ strategy and tactics to help the other players (your parents) reach your level of enlightenment in an area, and then you can walk the path together if you choose. And you never "win", people just move around on the board. The trick is to move everyone into positions that manifest love and harmony instead of fear and prejudice.

Fuck, I sound like a hippy. ;-P

Best of luck; you've potentially got decades of work play ahead of you.

[danaeris.livejournal.com]

I appreciate the long, well thought-out response, but your response indicates a lack of understanding of my emotional status.

I'm not upset or emotionally reacting to my parents. I've contemplated many times coming out to them about, well, several things. I haven't done so, though there have been hints here and there. There's this part of me that wants to come out to them. In the meantime, it doesn't bother me or hurt me to hear them say things like that. Yeah, the things they are saying are offensive, but I find them more funny than hurtful.

I'm not good at arguing with my parents. Comes of overbearing parents and a submissive mindset. But the ways in which I fail to argue with them are very different from my normal communication issues (and btw, it makes me twitch a little that you phrased it that way... I felt like you were saying that I have severe communication issues and am severely limited in my ability to communicate properly, which probably wasn't your intention, just sharing), and tend more towards the not saying anything and eventually needing to run away so that I can cope in private, than towards lashing out and saying foolish things.

Its true that I don't know how to be subtle. The truth is I don't want to be subtle. I want to either tell them and cope with the fallout, or not tell them at all. But instead I'm playing this weird game of bits and pieces of information. And I'm not sure how to deal with it without messing it up. *shrug* At the moment, anyway, it isn't at all emotional, is the point of this rambling response. But I really do appreciate your thoughtfulness regardless.

[danaeris.livejournal.com]

(and btw, this is a great example of how hot buttons can create a filter... you wrote something very innocuous and I read it as "you are incapable of communicating properly blahblahblah." But I knew pretty much right away that I was having a gut reaction, so I suppose that's a good start.

[kaidevis.livejournal.com]

>>> btw, it makes me twitch a little that you phrased it that way... I felt like you were saying that I have severe communication issues and am severely limited in my ability to communicate properly, which probably wasn't your intention, just sharing <<<

No, not my intention at all, I just didn't want to go into the detail of it since it was tangential; you've said yourself that you have some communication issues you want to work on and are working on, and so I was referring to that. I don't think you have an inability to communicate "properly" (I prefer the word "effectively"), since you certainly do a damn sight better than the majority of the people I know, this entire post and the threads that come from it being prime example that you're ahead of the game.

>>> But I really do appreciate your thoughtfulness regardless. <<<

*nods* danke; good luck sorting it all out. :-)

[cr0wgrrl.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't touch this one until I was calm. Spend the angry energy getting every fact you can think of and figuring out what perspective she would understand most.

Once I thought I was calm, find someone good at being a devil's advocate -- digitalsidhe comes to mind first as someone very good at getting into an opposite headspace and arguing from that point of view -- and try out the discussion on them. See what points you haven't thought of that will inevitably come up.

Research & calm down again.

Then maybe approach it from a non-upset, non-hurt tone with your mom. She probably won't "get it" completely, but there has to be a starting point somewhere.

Remember that good people can believe and do very stupid things.

Why bother? Because obviously it is important to you, you may someday want to introduce the woman you love to them, and you shouldn't have to fear that. And because every person who stops being uneducated/wrong and learns differently is one more step toward changing the world.

[danaeris.livejournal.com]

Just to clarify, I'm not upset or uncalm. Sleep dep'd and bad at arguing with my parents, yes. Weird psychological mind blocks pop up when arguing with my parents--especially my father. Because he makes it confrontational.

Anyway. I don't know if I'm ready to have conversations like this with my mother, which is why I haven't responded even though she sent this email early yesterday evening. I'm going to wait until I know what I want to say. I particularly like digitalsidhe's argument above. So I guess you pegged him right as the person to get advice from! :)

[tikva.livejournal.com]

You may cheerfully reassure your mother that the Gay Agenda cannot possibly exist, given that we can't even plan a goddamn potluck without Major Social Angst (tm). :)

[elf]

Before there was paperwork & taxes involved, marriage was a civil contract about two things: children and property. The purpose of a marriage was to provide a framework in which to raise children, and a legal structure in which to distribute property. Often, community religious leaders would sanction a marriage... but there are reasons that mayors & ship's captains can officiate at a wedding: because it's a *civil* contract, not a religious one.

Who people slept with was not important. Some places allowed folks to sleep with anyone they wanted; some had rules about it... lotsa places allowed (or ignored entirely) same-gender sex because you couldn't have children that way, and it wouldn't disrupt the family. Opposite-gender sex was a problem, because until about 50 years ago in high-tech countries, sex=kids. Almost always. Birth control was dangerous & unreliable.

For a long time, kids was proof of a marriage. No kids yet, it's not a real marriage. No kids after a couple of years, get an annulment & find a new partner.

So... fast forward... we know have this "marriage" institution, which has historically always been about kids. (One man/one woman has *not* always been the case: check out Africa, India, and our own Mormons. Multi-spouses of one gender has been allowed in several countries.) But marriages today are not about kids, or at least, they don't have to be. They're not about property; married couples don't have to share property. They don't have to live together. They aren't responsible for each others' debts or crimes.

What exactly *is* a marriage, what's required of the people involved, doesn't get decided until one of them wants to leave it. Marriage is now a specific legal contract (the only one in the US where the people signing it can't see the terms), with terms that *cannot be acquired* through any other contract.

That's why gay marriage should be allowed. Because there is nothing that makes them "less marriagable" than an infertile couple with no property, not because it's "morally right." Marriage in the US has never been about morals... it's a specific legal contract. Until the terms of that contract are defined, and available to people through other means, they are practicing gender-based discrimination for no reason other than religious bias.

[auros]

Your last paragraph sums up why the Lawrence decision will probably ultimately lead to the US being forced to either abolish marriage, expand it to include gays, or create a perfectly-equivalent type of contract with a different name.

I personally favor the first option.

[elf]

I could deal with that. Make a partnership contract with specific terms available to everyone; make "marriage," like "baptism" or "initiation," a specific religious rite that has no legal standing. Each church, each minister/priest, would decide who they're willing to marry.

One of the minor grumbly annoyances I have with marriage now is that wedding vows are not enforceable.

[auros]

And I'd actually make it a "partnership" in the same sense that a law-firm is -- there can be two or more partners.

And I'm not sure I'd want marriage vows to be universally enforced. As I was commenting to questioner a couple days ago, there's always going to be the case where some clueless young girl gets married, has a child, then realizes that her husband is mildly schizophrenic, and prone to dangerous levels of violence, and needs to get herself and her kid out of that situation. The law should be more concerned with making sure everyone is OK than with rigorously enforcing sweet nothings like "til death do us part." Especially when there's a risk that the aforementioned death may be hastened by the other partner.