Mr. President, the gaydar is full of bogeys!!

They’re everywhere!!

Bush supports amending the Constitution to “codify” that marriage is between a man and a woman. Yet another reason I believe he is a complete moron. Clinton’s signing of the Defense of Marriage Act (as though it were somehow under homosexual attack…) is disappointing. These bits of information aren’t new, but the following make it seem disappointingly possible…

CBS News and The New York Times are both carrying articles discussing the results of their latest joint poll, which showed that many Americans disagree with legalizing either gay marriages or civil unions and support amending the Constitution to explicitly ban such joinings.

The CBS News article contains many graphical breakdowns of what groups are opposed to gay marriage, and what people think the nature of homosexuality is; chosen behavior or natural state. Unsurprisingly, men are generally more opposed to formalized homosexual relationships. In my experience, men seem more prone to believe that “homosexuality is a contagious disease” and that “they’re all pedophiles.”

The other disturbing trend I noticed from the groupings was the apparent willingness of groups that were at one time legally discriminated against (women, ethnic minorities) to ignore the similarities of their former circumstances to those faced by homosexuals today. I am not equating the civil rights struggle with legalized homosexual marriages, but there are parallels to some specific issues within that movement; in particular the ban on inter-racial marriage.

The New York Times article has several particularly moronic comments from people who seemed to think that homosexuality is some sort of communicable, deviant behavior that threatens the institution of marriage.

How does gay marriage threaten anyone? Why do people feel that we should make it illegal? Is marriage some sort of private club that has to involve one penis and one vagina per couple?

Those arguing that marriage is defined by “God” as a union of one man + one woman need to re-read the Constitution: we do not have a state religion. No religion should dictate law to U.S. citizens.

Personally, I think this is proof of latent societal homophobia, even amongst those who otherwise think of themselves as progressive and accepting. Many want to be politically correct and non-discriminatory, but they still can’t accept that homosexuals are just people who have sex with people with the same set of genitals.

Published by

Daniel J. Wilson

I am a designer, drummer, and photographer in Brooklyn, NY.

2 thoughts on “Mr. President, the gaydar is full of bogeys!!”

  1. They tried for “Marriage Defense Shield Bill”, but that didn’t test well with focus groups.

    A) Republicans, as a platform, don’t like homosexuals.
    B) Homosexual people want to be afforded the legal right to marry.

    Therefore, Republicans clearly are letting their prejudice taint the issue. My real problem here is that the legal status of marriage is far far too entangled in religion as-is.

    Heck, churches are too tied up in the notion too. Why should a senator/president’s religious leanings affect the leanings?

    They say it is about morals. It’s not even close to being about morals. It is not immoral for those who love each other to want to spend their lives together. Repeat: there is nothing immoral.

    These are just an example of how religion is *still* too entwined in politics. This simply must stop.

  2. It is quite true that many confuse morality with religious values.

    Many argue that all morals are derived from religion , but I believe this is because they were first codified in religious texts.

Comments are closed.