Gay Patriot Header Image

Changing my Mind
on Including Gay Couples in Commercials on Marriage Initiatives

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 8:48 pm - August 14, 2009.
Filed under: Civil Discourse,Conservative Ideas,Gay Marriage

In my post outlining a strategy for opponents of the people’s veto of the bill passed by the elected legislature and signed by the elected Governor recognizing gay marriage, I noted (in a footnote) that one of the ideas I was putting forward, featuring same-sex couples talking about their relationships represented a shift in my position.

You see, I had long believed that because of the “ick” factor, the cause gay marriage would be better served by not showing gay couples.  Many Americans may not mind what people do in their own bedrooms, just so long as they don’t have to be reminded about it by seeing them together.  They’re fine with us being left alone to live our lives as we please, just as long as we don’t do it in front of them.

But, something I read on a left-wing blog (I believe it was Michael Petrelis’s site, but am certain there were others) actually got the gears in my head spinning and caused me to rethink the issue.  These left-of-center bloggers (I’m pretty sure it was more than one) lamented the absence of gay people in the “No on 8″ commercials.  And said something like,”Why can’t we make the case for our rights.”

And while I disagreed with their choice of rhetoric, I realized that if wavering (and wary) voters say a gay person saying he understood what marriage was all about and was ready to assume its responsibilities, then more people might see that this wasn’t just about a milepost in the culture wars (to paraphrase one wise law professor), but about affirming the values of an ancient institution.

If people see a gay person saying that, it could both change minds and promote healthy and genuine social change.

Share

19 Comments

  1. I think it be a lot better if people see us gay folk in person.

    I think it would be beneficial to know how many people out there have no views or are apathetic towards the issue of same sex marriage. The media(broadcast in particular) sensationalizes and polarizes the issue. Though the average straight American probably doesn’t have a stance on this issue. I think on a more personal level if we let our friends, family, and acquaintances know that this issue is important to us. When they go to the voting booth they might see gay marriage, not as another issue on CNN, but as one of their friend’s rite.

    Sorry for the bad grammar/spelling

    Comment by Eric — August 15, 2009 @ 12:13 am - August 15, 2009

  2. Part of the reason gays were urged to come out of the closet was to show us that they were just like us. And a large number of people I know now have family members who are gay. They idea is not to show them being lovey-dovey – just present them as members of the same family who wish to be recognized as such. A couple of years ago, a gay couple in our church gave a tithing testimony. The breadwinner and child raiser don’t even get to average their income on a joint return.

    Comment by Fran — August 15, 2009 @ 12:14 am - August 15, 2009

  3. You see, I had long believed that because of the “ick” factor, the cause gay marriage would be better served by not showing gay couples.

    No, no, no. Glad you’ve changed your mind (the point of your post). To sell any new idea, you have to be honest about what it is, and show what it is, and let people reject it if that is what those people need to do. If it’s a good idea, it will win over time. No other way works in the long run.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 15, 2009 @ 12:56 am - August 15, 2009

  4. If people see a gay person saying that, it could both change minds and promote healthy and genuine disingenuous social change

    There, fixed it for you.

    You see, such a statement would be a lie. It isn’t even CLOSE to how the “gay community” behaves or thinks. Monogamous long term relationships are the freakishly rare exception, not the rule. The overwhelming majority of gay relationships are short term and/or “open” relationships. And there is NO evidence whatsoever of any interest or effort toward changing that.

    Indeed, who wants to bet whether THE leading advocate for gay marriage, Miss Milky Glutes, has an “open marriage”? I know which side I’d put my money on.

    Moreover, where is the evidence? Where are the large majorities of gays getting hitched in those states and countries where it is legal? They arent! Tiny minorities have availed themselves of it. TINY.

    And it would also be a lie in the sense that it is institutionalizing a falsehood: that homosexuality is the same, and just as important as heterosexuality. Actually, it would be worse than that, because it would be institutionalizing the lie that other arrangements are just as good for society as heterosexual marriage and the nuclear family. And others would follow.

    I still fail to see how you have an institution that upholds an ideal if you admit all sorts of alternatives to that institution and claim they are just as good.

    Fact is, you cant.

    Comment by American Elephant — August 15, 2009 @ 1:35 am - August 15, 2009

  5. AE, you know I don’t believe homosexuality is the “same” as heterosexuality. And support the adherence to the ideal of marriage. If I ever find a partner, even if we don’t call our union marriage, it will be monogamous or it will not be.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — August 15, 2009 @ 2:03 am - August 15, 2009

  6. AE, you know I don’t believe homosexuality is the “same” as heterosexuality.

    I didn’t know that, but I certainly believe you if you say so. But, you see, if that is the case, your belief and your actions are contradictory, for you are espousing policy that treats them the same.

    And support the adherence to the ideal of marriage.

    You do? The ideal of marriage is getting men and women to get tied up in legal knots so that when children are born into the world, they are protected by those legal knots between their biological parents. That is the benefit marriage brings to society, that is what people understand and support as the states role in marriage, and as a result, that is the value that both statute and judicial review reflect. How does what you advocate strengthen or even “adhere to” that ideal? Logically it cannot.

    Comment by American Elephant — August 15, 2009 @ 5:36 am - August 15, 2009

  7. Maine is the most gay-friendly place you could imagine. There are a few local tv commercials here featuring lesbian couples and no one bats an eye. (They’re just cooking together in a kitchen, but the implication is there.) So, you are correct that seeing gay faces won’t send them running for the door.

    Having said that, I confess ambivalence. Sure, lesbian and gay friends here are largely supportive. But to echo AE, I don’t know anyone who would actually take the step to get married. Not a soul.

    Most feel it would be symbolic. A plurality feel that it would be a handy legal stick to whack churches and Boy Scout troops. Now, if this the intended consequence of the legisation, supporters should have the temerity to admit it.

    Best wishes,
    -MFS

    Comment by MFS — August 15, 2009 @ 9:44 am - August 15, 2009

  8. Will these gay couples be in “open” relationships? Will they be talking about the “rules” they’ve made so that they can each play around? Are you going to be able to find any gay couples in lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships, who have vowed, “’til death do us part, forsaking all others”?

    (Default gay answer–“Straight people do open relationships too! Straight people commit adultery all the time! Straight people are hypocrites!” OK, now you don’t have to respond with that.)

    Comment by Ashpenaz — August 15, 2009 @ 12:27 pm - August 15, 2009

  9. American Elephant,

    Please explain why GPW’s future relationship would not be as good for society as any other marriage.

    Comment by DRH — August 16, 2009 @ 5:07 am - August 16, 2009

  10. Can i get some opinions in this topic, or is it relevant on a gay blog? http://gaytheistagenda.lavenderliberal.com/2009/07/11/bryce-faulkner-another-young-gay-person-victimized-by-the-ex-gay-industry/

    Comment by Dermot — August 16, 2009 @ 5:15 pm - August 16, 2009

  11. Reparative therapy abuse is the gay equivalent of satanic ritual abuse. Although reparative therapy doesn’t work, as I can attest, it’s not evil. It’s like a fad diet. Once you realize that it isn’t effective, you stop doing it. Gays are not victims of reparative therapy. This kid would be in a lot more trouble at any gay bar in any town where he would be the victim of sexual exploitation, STDs, drugs, and possible death. Better to have him in reparative therapy than in the Gay Borg.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — August 16, 2009 @ 8:00 pm - August 16, 2009

  12. Please explain why GPW’s future relationship would not be as good for society as any other marriage.

    DRH, that’s because Dan’s partner would be the same sex as him. As such, it will be impossible for Dan and his partner to procreate, as if that is the only sole purpose for marriage today. Notwithstanding that we not only allow but encourage older and/or infertile straight couples to marry.

    Yeah, I can’t figure out the logic either.

    This kid would be in a lot more trouble at any gay bar in any town where he would be the victim of sexual exploitation, STDs, drugs, and possible death. Better to have him in reparative therapy than in the Gay Borg.

    Ashpenaz, I disagree. With “reparative” “therapy,” time is being wasted on trying to change an orientation that won’t change. If it “works,” then the victim masks his natural orientation, and perhaps brings in a woman to a relationship that shouldn’t be. When it doesn’t “work,” which is almost always the case, the victim ends up being more confused than when entering, thus probably leaving the victim more vulnerable to STDs, drugs, etc.

    What would be MUCH better is raising gay children the same way we would raise straight children. Warn them about sexual exploitation, drugs, and STDs. And tell them that there is plenty of good about their sexual orientation, instead of trying to make them ashamed of it. But there are also downsides about either sexual orientation, and to be careful about them and avoid them.

    (Default gay answer–”Straight people do open relationships too! Straight people commit adultery all the time! Straight people are hypocrites!” OK, now you don’t have to respond with that.)

    Okay, since you’ve stated this, no need to repeat it. What’s your point? That even though not all straight married couples are monogamous, marriage is still okay there. But until gay couples are 100% perfect and satisfy your ideal, there should be no same sex marriage.

    Comment by Pat — August 17, 2009 @ 7:29 am - August 17, 2009

  13. Please explain why GPW’s future relationship would not be as good for society as any other marriage.

    Because the point of marriage is to encourage the ideal situation: children being raised by their biological mother and biological father in the protections of wedlock. None of which any same sex couple can do. Indeed, their marriage would contradict the ideal.

    Comment by American Elephant — August 17, 2009 @ 8:10 am - August 17, 2009

  14. Hey, if it’s OK to simply define marriage in whatever way supports your personal beliefs, then let me take a shot at it: Marriage is a commitment between two people who love each other and wish to spend the rest of their lives together.

    It can have religious and civil meanings too. Unless you’re gay, then you’re out of luck because you suck (no pun intended). Religion is a tough nut to crack, try convincing fundamentalists that gay marriage is harmless, but we CAN change the civil definition of marriage without repercussions (other than the frantic hand-wringing of people who live in fear of change).

    As to whether or not putting gay couples “on display” is a good idea or not, it depends on who’s watching. People obsessed with homosexuality won’t EVER see two people in love, all they’ll ever see is the sexual part of the coupling (personally, I think that shows a sick, obsessive mentality on their part — they don’t make that connection when seeing a straight couple). Everyone else, from the supportive to the ambivalent, will see “a couple,” and that would have a positive effect. An effect that would be obvious for the supportive, and for the ambivalent it might help them to see gay couples as less different than they might otherwise believe, “Hmm, they cook, they clean, they shop, they go to work, they raise their kids, what’s the problem again?”

    Comment by DoorHold — August 17, 2009 @ 12:46 pm - August 17, 2009

  15. Please explain why GPW’s future relationship would not be as good for society as any other marriage.

    Because the point of marriage is to encourage the ideal situation: children being raised by their biological mother and biological father in the protections of wedlock. None of which any same sex couple can do. Indeed, their marriage would contradict the ideal.

    American Elephant, does this mean that you see the most important function of marriage to be childbirth and rearing? Or perhaps just a “necessary but not sufficient” sort of condition?

    Also, does this mean the primary benefit to society of marriage is well-raised children?

    Comment by DRH — August 17, 2009 @ 7:18 pm - August 17, 2009

  16. Hey, if it’s OK to simply define marriage in whatever way supports your personal beliefs, then let me take a shot at it

    No, its NOT OK. And that is precisely the problem with the argument for “gay marriage” — it depends on pretending that marriage has no function in order to justify same sex marriage. So gays claim the purpose of marriage is whatever suits their political agenda.

    But in a nation of laws, it is the people who have the right to define institutions, and I am using the definition established by the duly elected representatives of the people, and upheld by the courts, a definition virtually identical in all 50 states :

    “the legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to survival of the human race, and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by the children’s
    biological parents. Allowing same-sex couples to marry does not, in the
    legislature’s view, further these purposes” ~ SCOWA

    Unlike your definition, or ANY of the definitions proffered by “gay marriage” supporters which they quite literally, pulled out of their asses.

    Comment by American Elephant — August 18, 2009 @ 5:58 am - August 18, 2009

  17. American Elephant, does this mean that you see the most important function of marriage to be childbirth and rearing?

    Yes, I do. So does society. (see above)

    Comment by American Elephant — August 18, 2009 @ 5:59 am - August 18, 2009

  18. Hey, if it’s OK to simply define marriage in whatever way supports your personal beliefs, then let me take a shot at it: Marriage is a commitment between two people who love each other and wish to spend the rest of their lives together.

    Doorhold, despite some old definition that’s still on the books in legislatures apparently, that’s pretty much the definition that is being recognized by most people today. And in some states, this definition includes same sex couples.

    Marriage has changed a lot over time, mostly for the better. And many of us believe that one more little change will be more beneficial to the institution and society.

    Comment by Pat — August 18, 2009 @ 10:12 am - August 18, 2009

  19. despite some old definition that’s still on the books

    The definition I gave is not old, it was written within the past decade as a response to gay activists trying to force their will upon everyone else.

    And many of us believe that one more little change will be more beneficial to the institution and society.

    Fortunately the vast majority of Americans disagree with you and show more concern for this fundamental institution. And the facts contradict you as well since the institution and society continue to deteriorate everywhere gay marriage has been legalized. With tiny numbers of gays availing themselves of the institution, more children being born out of wedlock, and marriage rates declining everywhere gay marriage has been legalized.

    Comment by American Elephant — August 18, 2009 @ 8:31 pm - August 18, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.