I listened to a fascinating interview today on Talk of the Nation (NPR). I copied this from npr.org: David Blankenhorn, president of the Institute for American Values, and Jonathan Rauch, who supports gay marriage, wouldn't seem to have much common ground on the issue. But, in an op-ed for The New York Times, they found it.
Everyone has their ideals, their perfect picture for everything. Rarely are those ideals met. I'll never dunk a basketball or have a functioning pancreas even though in an ideal world I would. So in the absence of realized-ideals there has to be compromise right? I can't yell and scream for the rest of my life that I deserve a pancreas. I probably do. But I have to compromise and take insulin, exercise and eat right.
People who hate gay marriage are probably never going to fully support it. People who want gay marriage are never going to stop wanting it. Both of these groups are never going to stop fighting for what they believe in. But it's pointless for both sides to keep screaming at each other. So this article offers a compromise. It's not the "ideal" for either side. But it's reasonable. And that's a better place to be than where the debate currently is.
Here is that op-ed.
Make Good Art
3 years ago
6 comments:
Great article, thanks for sharing! Did I hear a rumor that you were working on a script for an organization that "fixes" gays?
a friend who went thru their organization recommended me to them. i now get to awkwardly turn them down. thanks, friend!
here's another idea. why don't we remove all the assumed rights that are associated with marriage?
here's one example... you won't get to share your insurance with your spouse just because you are married. why should one person be able to share their coverage with another person... while someone else is not? i don't like the idea of having to pay more for health insurance... but, i don't like the idea of having a economic privilege just because i'm married.
why don't we equal the playing field by removing rights for some, instead of granting rights for all? i guess that's not the "american way".
do you think people would be willing to give up economic and other rights for the opportunity to define marriage?
i am licensed to perform weddings by the church and state... i think the former is more important than the latter.
milthaler
matthew, i think you'd have to figure out a way to spin the call to "sacrifice" your rights-gained-thru-marriage in a way that it feels positive for the sacrificers. i can't imagine even the staunchest of gay marriage opponents giving up their rights to insurance and social security just to make sure gay couples don't have them either. that sounds like old solomon story about cutting the baby in half.
monday's talk of the nation was very interesting. it had all kinds of opinions. it's worth listening to if you're interested in the topic.
So, I'm curious, was your friend "cured" of his homosexuality? Do you really believe someone can be "fixed" or "cured" of how God made them?
anonymous,
that conversation was an inside joke. i don't really have a friend who went thru that program. to answer your question- i have no idea. i know that the whole thing makes me uncomfortable in that i'd never dream of wanting to "fix" my homosexual friends. but i guess if a homosexual wants to stop being a homosexual that is their right as much as it is their right to be one. and if that desire is out there i guess there should be organizations that can help them. either way, it's none of my business and something i don't spend much time thinking about.
Post a Comment