Tuesday, 14 October 2008

Prop 8. Heather Tom sparks a debate.

As you’re probably aware, Taylor – you’re alive! is not a political blog. Far from it.

Yesterday, when I posted a blog entry about Heather Tom at a gala supporting the rights of same sex couples, I was just pleased that an actor on B&B would stand up for something she believed in. I wasn’t expecting anyone to comment, except maybe to say “nice dress” or something.

Anyway, someone did voice their opinion. It was very politely done, and in no way inflammatory or intentionally offensive. But, if people are going to comment on my blog about such things, then I am going to respond.

Below is the comment (in red) from a blogger called ms lee of the lemon drops. After that, I’ll weigh in with my opinion.

Defining marriage as between one man and one woman is not taking away anyone's rights. The definition simply distinguishes a union that is biologically capable of producing its own children. Whether a married couple has children or not, I feel like this deserves a separate name--even the potential is kind of a miracle.

Actually this definition can be seen as the ultimate expression of equality our society has to offer: it takes one man and one woman. One could see a lesbian union as a marginalization of men, or a homosexual union as a marginalization of women.

Equality is especially important when it comes to raising children. Children deserve/need a father and a mother. Neither parent should be marginalized.

Yes, many children are already growing up in single-parent homes. Prop 8 should be a reminder to everyone that as a society we need to assist and strengthen families as much as possible. Really, as a society we should be most concerned with the success and health of our families.


peace out

Ms Lee’s first point is that marriage should be defined by the following criteria:

· one man
· one woman
· they are biologically capable of having children

Now, before I even touch on the same sex issue, why does “biologically capable of producing [their] own children” count as a pre-requisite to be allowed to get married? What if a “normal” male-female couple are biologically incapable of producing children? Does that mean they are not suitable for marriage? Okay, so Ms Lee states whether they have children or not doesn’t matter, it is the potential to have children that counts.

I’m not trying to be facetious here, I’m just trying to understand the logic. With the mention of the “miracle” of procreation, I am assuming Ms Lee is imposing her theological values onto what is essentially a moral dilemma: do same sex couples deserve the same rights as heterosexual couples? That is the question, that is what we need to consider in this debate, not the “miracle” of childbirth. Lesbians are biologically capable of carrying children; gay men are biologically capable of fathering children. Something tells me that neither one of these biologically possible scenarios would be considered “miracles” by Ms Lee.

Her next point is that a lesbian union could be seen as “a marginalization of men” and a gay union “a marginalization of women”. I am biting my tongue here in an effort to stop myself flying off the handle. How exactly can a minority be accused of marginalizing men or women?

It seems that Ms Lee’s underlying message is a man and a woman should marry, anything else is wrong. Let’s not forget that interracial marriages once carried a similar stigma. The root of that prejudice was that black people were not viewed as equals. Is the same thing the crux of the argument here?

Ms Lee goes on to say that children “deserve/need a father and a mother.” Okay, I get where she’s coming from, I really do. The traditional family unit is her ideal. But, would banning same sex couples from getting married achieve Ms Lee’s ideal situation? Of course not, it’s fundamentally flawed: gay people are not going to turn straight and start raising families in “normal” male-female relationships because they can’t get married. It’s nonsense. The only thing that banning same sex marriages will do is marginalize gay people. Surely, a healthy society is one that is willing to embrace diversity, not one that makes judgements based on sexuality.

Ms Lee says, “as a society we should be most concerned with the success and health of our families.” Those are honourable words, and I agree. The human race is a family, and for humankind we should be fighting for all of its members… yes, we should fight for success and health, but also equality.

For more info: http://www.noonprop8.com/


AFWifey said...


Anonymous said...

I absolutely agree. I think the movement to keep gays and lesbians from marrying, and having the legal protections that this provides, is misguided and rather mean spirited. Love and commitment are what defines a marriage.

Lyndon said...

Being a guy, I am fully supportive of lesbianism in particular, and wouldn't feel marginalised in any way at all :)

Anyway, what I'd like to know is what exactly do people think will happen if gay and lesbian couples get married? Will the sky fall down? Will our economy stall? I doubt it. So much ignorance out there based on fear over nothing.

Equal rights for all, I say!

Marone Macaroni said...

Thanks for everyone's comments! They're appreciated.

Darren AKA Marone Macaroni

missheather said...

I've never been a B&B watcher but do miss Heather from her time on OLTL and Y&R.