HOME > VIEWPOINT > SOUND OFF!
COMMENTS
 
Re “Taking the
blame for messing up marriage” (editorial by Chris Crain, Dec. 10)
Gay marriage is a threat
to heterosexual marriage because it’s the chief tool to maintaining a male-dominated
society. When all the sex-discrimination laws are off the books, when we all have
equal opportunities at work, there will still be the domestic front, the final
domain of “privacy” and oppression. With gay marriage, we dissolve
any possibility that men and women have biologically-determined roles and simultaneously
break down the culturally-determined ones. If men (even gay men) can enter into
a legal relationship as either oppressor or oppressed, then women can no longer
be oppressed because of their sex. And the lesbian threat — that women actually
can survive without men — needs no mention, I hope. There’s no point
in tiptoeing around this issue. The conservatives know it in their bones. It’s
time to be up front: proponents of same-sex marriage are out to radically change
the institution of marriage. And that’s a good thing.
Only gays should have access to legal
nonreligious relationships such as civil unions and domestic partnerships or
we are a threat to marriage? As a divorce lawyer in Tennessee, let me tell you
without fear of contradiction that heterosexuals need no help from us in trashing
the institution of marriage. Chris Crain’s editorial reveals his affection
for conservatism, tradition for its own sake, and religious mumbo jumbo.
resources executive, I have had the
opportunity to add domestic partner benefits as an option for employees. In
all instances, the benefit was available to same-sex and opposite-sex couples.
We offered the benefit to help define ourselves as an employer of choice in
our industry. It had nothing to do with senior management’s views on homosexuality
or marriage; no one was making a statement in support of gay rights. Gay men
and women certainly benefited, but it really wasn’t about them. So if
a Massachusetts company decides to eliminate same-sex D.P. benefits now that
gay marriage is legal in their state, I can assure you it is about saving money,
not some ideological statement about a newfound equality.
Re “Debunking
the ‘down low’” (The Point, Dec. 10)
Keith Boykin for speaking out
on the issue of the HIV/AIDS issue in the black community. Although I did buy
J.L. King’s book, and think the denial and irresponsibility of men on
the “down low” does contribute to the rise in infection among black
heterosexual women, it is the responsibility of each black person to protect
him or herself and each other. That’s where we fail miserably. Looking
at the statistics at the end of the day, no one is concerned about who is on
the “down low,” but why black people are slow on prevention.
men on the D.L. are solely
responsible for these increasing HIV rates is an incredibly broad stroke. The
reality is that there have always been men on the D.L., or men who have sex
with men without identifying as gay. We also know that not all men on the D.L.
are bisexual. Many D.L. men live very active “gay lives.” They meet
and socialize with openly gay men at gay clubs, events and other venues. We
know that ultimately everyone is responsible for his or her own health and while
we hear a great deal about gay sexual behavior, we hear nothing about the sexual
attitudes taught to and held by women that may contribute to rising rates of
HIV.
Re “Military
court nixes sodomy law” (news, Dec. 10)
of Servicemembers Legal Defense
Network Executive Director, Dixon Osburn, inferring that Log Cabin was “secretive”
about its legal challenge of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,”
sounded a bit like sour grapes. For he and SLDN legal counsel, Tobias Wolff,
to publicly detail potential points of weakness in the LCR case in an effort
to promote the “superiority” of their own, is mindboggling. Why
would we help the government form its defense? Gentlemen, it’s not a manhood
contest! ...
|
