Gay marriage is a conservative idea

Oregonlive ^ | 3/20/04 | Mark MacDougall

[qam1]

It has been a roller-coaster ride of emotions for my partner and I, these past several weeks. We have been together for over twenty-one years and have also been battling AIDS and HIV for all those years. Lately, we have watched the long awaited dream of gay marriage unfold on the television as we sit side by side in a hospital room.

My partner, Peter, has been admitted to the hospital, six times in six weeks. The most heartbreaking moment was a month ago. For seven years he has been on dialysis and for over a year on the kidney transplant list. A month ago we received that long awaited call that a kidney was available. We raced from Medford to Portland for the transplant. He was all prepped and ready for the operating room when it was discovered he had a bad heart valve that needed to be replaced first. He was turned away.

A return home saw a series of hospital stays caused by complications from his dialysis condition. Last Monday he had his heart valve replaced in open-heart surgery and is currently recuperating.

We are still here, partially through luck, but mainly through our love and commitment to each other and a constant concern over each other's health. It always helps to have a gently nagging spouse to make sure you take care of yourself. The simple concepts of taking your medicine, exercising and eating right are more readily followed when you have a persistent partner by your side.

Mutual care giving is a huge benefit marriage provides. It is a benefit to both the married partners and society as whole. This benefit will be even more valuable to society as the baby boomers age. In contemplating these benefits, it has occurred to me that gay marriage really is a socially conservative concept. If one is able to separate one's religious beliefs from gay marriage and look at it at it without bias, its conservative values and benefits become apparent.

It is an element our own gay spokespeople often ignore. I think by now the public is well informed on how gay marriage strengthens our gay families and how it benefits gay people. They have heard our heart-wrenching stories. What is missing in the debate is how gay marriage benefits the rest of society.

The broader question to ask when changing civil laws is whether a change would benefit society overall.

Successful marriages for heterosexuals has long contributed on average to better health both physical and mental, dual parenting of children, greater financial stability and home ownership, better loan repayment, better health insurance coverage, joint legal responsibilities, less transmission of sexual diseases, less substance abuse, less financial burden to taxpayers with joint care giving, and fewer individuals on Welfare, Medicaid or other government assistance. This is just a partial list. All these same societal benefits and taxpayer savings would also come from legal gay marriages.

If just one teenage gay boy sees society value gay marriage and thus avoids AIDS by living a committed and monogamous life, the health care savings to the rest of society is substantial. Over a lifetime AIDS cocktails can literally cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

My partner and I unfortunately know all too well the cost of these drugs. We believe one or the other contracted HIV shortly before we met in 1982. One can only guess whether, if gay marriage was available and valued back then, our earlier sexual behavior would have been different and years of heartbreak avoided.

Legal gay marriage is a net gain for society and has no verifiable negative effect on heterosexual marriage. (It is ironic that as a gay man I have greater faith in heterosexual marriage than many conservatives.) Gay marriage sends a consistent conservative message to both gay and straight that sexual intimacy in the bounds of marriage is a valued and healthy way of life.

On a personal note, because of an unstable work history there are many times when I may have required government welfare assistance if not for the financial assistance of my spouse, Peter. And I in return have and will continue to be, when needed, a caregiver to Peter. Thus, the taxpayer savings and societal benefits of stable long-term relationships are very real. Gay marriage truly is a conservative concept.

One closing note, my partner and I registered as Domestic Partners on March 25, 1985 in the city of West Hollywood, CA. on the first day their new groundbreaking registration went into effect. I believe we may be the longest registered Domestic Partners in the United States.

Mark MacDougall lives in Medford.

[qam1]

Sorry I forgot the Barf alert

[goldstategop]

If it kept gay men from being promiscuous, gay marriage might create responsible and lasting relationships. All of which would demand a change in male nature which craves variety and is never quite satisfied for long with the status quo.

[dirtboy]

My partner and I unfortunately know all too well the cost of these drugs. We believe one or the other contracted HIV shortly before we met in 1982. One can only guess whether, if gay marriage was available and valued back then, our earlier sexual behavior would have been different and years of heartbreak avoided...One closing note, my partner and I registered as Domestic Partners on March 25, 1985 in the city of West Hollywood, CA.

We've had a virtual onslaught of advertising about the dangeres of unprotected gay sex for twenty years. Yet plenty of young gays engage in such. Don't blame opposition to gay marriage for sexual recklessness.

[K1avg]

Good points (although perhaps hopelessly optimistic), but the fact is that marriage is a religious institution, not a civil right. In my opinion, the government is overstepping its bounds in offering marriages by justice of the peace, or whatever.

Religion defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The thing is, a man cannot count as a woman, or a woman as a man. It's not that gay marriage is utterly offensive, but it doesn't play with my moral and religious convictions. Gay marriage is a sin, and I'll be damned if I see it legalized in my country.

[goldstategop]

I don't blame gays who live a life of love and complete fidelity. It should be a lesson to heterosexuals to strengthen their own marriages and not head for the divorce court when there's the first sign of difficulty in a marital relationship.

[Gabz]

All of which would demand a change in male nature which craves variety and is never quite satisfied for long with the status quo.

Oh really?

Maybe you meant this sarcastically, and I hope you did, because if you didn't I find it to be an extremely offensive comment........and I'm female.

[SpyGuy]

One can only guess whether, if gay marriage was available and valued back then, our earlier sexual behavior would have been different and years of heartbreak avoided.

Yeah right: just like the availability of true (heterosexual) marriage limits promiscuity of unmarried men and women. Even marriage itself does not prevent people from being promiscuous and committing adultery.

What *DOES* limit promiscuity is a society that holds common traditional moral values, one of which is that promiscuity is wrong. Of course, the Left and the Liberals have been tearing down these moral values for almost fifty years. Homosexual "marriage" is just one more step towards destroying any and all societal limits on human depravity.

[wagglebee]

It's horrible what AIDS victims endure, but marraige hasn't really promoted fidelity in heterosexuals, and it won't in gays. This whole thing is just a leftist attempt to destroy the morality of western civilization.

[Fiddlstix]

"Sorry I forgot the Barf alert"

Presented as a Public Service
Certain FReepers may need this

Click the Pic

Here ya go.

[goldstategop]

I do agree its a sin. Which is precisely why marriage should be a religious ritual. Now of course there are pagans masquerading as the devout who grant fake legitimacy to sinful unions but it shouldn't bother us for their first duty is to Man not to God.

[ICE-FLYER]

If one is able to separate one's religious beliefs from gay marriage and look at it at it without bias, its conservative values and benefits become apparent.

This is too funny....heres the translation:

If on would only sell their soul as so many have done in churches throughout America and just give in to our lifestyle choice and set it up next to Male/Female marriage as so-called commanded by God then they could easily be a left leaning politically-correct Hillary Supporter like me and my Boyfriend.

So typical of a liberal, starting out with a "Feel bad for me" story so as to guilt you in to seeing it his way. he wants you to sell your soul, and denounce your faith but then call yourself a conservative.

[VRWC_minion]

If one assumes that God wants what is best for each of us and we acknowledge that God forbid sexual immorality in both the old and new testament, then its logical to assume that God knows homosexuals will be happiest if they remain celibate.

[bogdanPolska12]

Ok.  Let somebody hit me crow bar.  This is utter nonsense.  Let me break this down by some lines here.

 

“In contemplating these benefits, it has occurred to me that gay marriage really is a socially conservative concept”.

Sorry dude but you are wrong on this.  Hell will freeze before true family oriented conservatives will allow you to muck what true marriage is all about – Between man and woman!

“If one is able to separate one's religious beliefs from gay marriage and look at it at it without bias, its conservative values and benefits become apparent.”

Here is a catch – religious beliefs – you got that right religious beliefs are still strong in people and they know what is right or wrong and will jeopardize their eternal salvation.

“The broader question to ask when changing civil laws is whether a change would benefit society overall”

It will not change society but will put a wrench and total slap at what marriage is all about – pro creation thus continuing human race being in existence.   

[SpyGuy]

the health care savings to the rest of society is substantial. Over a lifetime AIDS cocktails can literally cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The health care savings to the rest of society would be even *more* substantial if we stopped making society at large pay for the irresponsible, reckless, and perverted behavior of a tiny minority of deviant individuals.

Society may not be able to prevent people like the author from sticking his penis in other men's rectums, but we damn sure shouldn't have to pay for the medical consequences of his actions.

[bogdanPolska12]

will jeopardize = will not jeopardize

[VRWC_minion]

The gov't got involved because marriage creates the potential of children and widows who the state may have to support in the event the marriage fails or one dies.

The reason for state involvment isn't to provide rights its to impose burdens. The gays have it backwards.

[longtermmemmory]

How about we recruitment proof out children.

This article is further proof for the need of the FMA. This is no different than the Human Rights Campaigs faux conservative advertisements during the Rush Radio Show saying a constitutional amendment codifying marriage as one man and one woman. It is facinating how the left is suddenly all for states rights (as long as one state judge can impose homosexual marriage on the other 49).

This article is only happening because we have hearings comming up in congress. Homosexuals are on the loosing end of the argument..

[goldstategop]

Its hardly offensive. The truth is male nature needs to be controlled, especially its sexual outlets. Dennis Prager had some thoughts about the dark side of men's looking for variety and stimulation:

When male sexuality is not controlled, the consequences are considerably more destructive than when female sexuality is not controlled. Men rape. Women do not. Men, not women, engage in fetishes. Men are more frequently consumed by their sex drive and wander from sex partner to sex partner. Men, not women, are sexually sadistic.

[K1avg]

The gov't got involved because marriage creates the potential of children and widows who the state may have to support in the event the marriage fails or one dies. Wait a minute...Marriage is a religious institution... Doesn't this violate some sort of leftist separation of church and state thing? Liberals and their double (or triple) standards. It's a wonder anyone can even seriously believe this crap.