Sunday, August 01, 2004
compassionate fascism?
Portland Communique led me to the website of the "Defense of Marriage Coalition" and an Oregonian article about ballot Measure 36, a proposal to narrowly define marriage in the Oregon constitution.
According to the coalition's political director, the proposed amendment is not about gays but about "the definition of marriage, the importance to all of us of holding a standard that is best for society, best for children."
Obviously, the proposed amendment is about gays, and about the religious community's intolerance of homosexuality. In a link from the coalition's website, a Portland pastor's sermon notes (ironically entitled "A Clear Compassionate Stance Against Homosexuality and Same-sex Marriage") describe homosexuality as unnatural, unhealthy, and "a sympton of fallen humanity".
Now, although I don't agree with this viewpoint, the pastor and other religious people certainly have the right to believe whatever they want. However, when they try to impose their viewpoint on others by limiting the ability for people to marry, I take offense.
I also think that their arguments against homosexuality just don't make sense. They disapprove of promiscuity (which they say is characteristic of homosexuals) yet also disapprove of marriage? Do they prefer for homosexuals to remain unmarried? Or (more likely) do they prefer that homosexuals just stop being homosexuals?
In an article listed on the Coalition's website, the author (Glenn T. Stanton) cites a Harvard researcher who notes that poverty is "primarily a result of family structure" and that kids in single-parent homes are more likely to experience poverty. However, the "compassionate" Portland pastor cited statistics from the Wall Street Journal that indicate that homosexuals tend to have higher than average incomes, more often hold managerial and professional positions, and to be college graduates. Wouldn't it follow then, that children might actually be better off in a married homosexual household? Not only would they have two married parents, but their parents might be better educated and better off financially than parents from other groups. In fact, it seems like homosexuals would be great candidates for adoption of kids. (I'll bet that homosexuals are probably much less likely to have abortions than heterosexuals - jeez, you'd think that the religious folk would be all for homosexuality!)
Now obviously, every family is different and every person has different strengths and weaknesses that they bring to parenting. But to assume that homosexuals cannot create good stable families is just another form of bigotry, and to not allow them to marry because of religious beliefs is discriminatory. I hope that Oregonians will have the sense to vote no on Measure 36 this fall.
¶ 3:17 PM
Portland Communique led me to the website of the "Defense of Marriage Coalition" and an Oregonian article about ballot Measure 36, a proposal to narrowly define marriage in the Oregon constitution.
According to the coalition's political director, the proposed amendment is not about gays but about "the definition of marriage, the importance to all of us of holding a standard that is best for society, best for children."
Obviously, the proposed amendment is about gays, and about the religious community's intolerance of homosexuality. In a link from the coalition's website, a Portland pastor's sermon notes (ironically entitled "A Clear Compassionate Stance Against Homosexuality and Same-sex Marriage") describe homosexuality as unnatural, unhealthy, and "a sympton of fallen humanity".
Now, although I don't agree with this viewpoint, the pastor and other religious people certainly have the right to believe whatever they want. However, when they try to impose their viewpoint on others by limiting the ability for people to marry, I take offense.
I also think that their arguments against homosexuality just don't make sense. They disapprove of promiscuity (which they say is characteristic of homosexuals) yet also disapprove of marriage? Do they prefer for homosexuals to remain unmarried? Or (more likely) do they prefer that homosexuals just stop being homosexuals?
In an article listed on the Coalition's website, the author (Glenn T. Stanton) cites a Harvard researcher who notes that poverty is "primarily a result of family structure" and that kids in single-parent homes are more likely to experience poverty. However, the "compassionate" Portland pastor cited statistics from the Wall Street Journal that indicate that homosexuals tend to have higher than average incomes, more often hold managerial and professional positions, and to be college graduates. Wouldn't it follow then, that children might actually be better off in a married homosexual household? Not only would they have two married parents, but their parents might be better educated and better off financially than parents from other groups. In fact, it seems like homosexuals would be great candidates for adoption of kids. (I'll bet that homosexuals are probably much less likely to have abortions than heterosexuals - jeez, you'd think that the religious folk would be all for homosexuality!)
Now obviously, every family is different and every person has different strengths and weaknesses that they bring to parenting. But to assume that homosexuals cannot create good stable families is just another form of bigotry, and to not allow them to marry because of religious beliefs is discriminatory. I hope that Oregonians will have the sense to vote no on Measure 36 this fall.
¶ 3:17 PM
