![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
An abomination worse than Vampires and Lichens put together!!
Like many of you, I feel compelled to weigh in on the ugly business at hand. Once again, Congress getting together to decide who a bunch of people they've never met before should or should not be allowed to marry.
I learned in grade school that the difference between Republicans and Democrats is that democrats want more and bigger government, while Republicans want less. Much like that whole George Washington/Cherry Tree kerfluffle, it appears that my teachers filled my head with lies, and then quizzed me on them.
I can't imagine that anyone on my friends list would actually be so archaic as to suggest that two single adults who love eachother should not be allowed to marry. Then again, my last poll brought to my attention that a few of you think censorship is A-OK and that horrors in other countries are not a big deal. :-(
So let me just tell you all a few things:
1. There is no shortage of children in this country and no reason at all to insist that people procreate. Plenty of kids are in inadequate schools, unable to see doctors, and are even starving. And we all know that the real reason people want to ban gay marriage has nothing to do with procreation anyway. If it did, those who chose not or could not have children would also not be allowed to marry. And of course, if we were really going to make legislation to better marriages, we would insist on waiting periods, mandatory counseling and education before marriage. We'd also criminalize adultery and verbal abuse, hell...we might even go so far as to prosecute spousal rape, which we almost never do.
2. I've heard people say that since lots of people want a constitutional ban on gay marriage, it should be discussed. Obviously people feel both ways about it. But let's look at the US's last big marriage controversy: For those of you who don't know, Alabama was the last US state to lift their legal ban on interracial marriage. Not in the 60's, not in the 70's, but in 2000. That's right, 2000. So the vote was just a formality right? By 2000 surely everyone knew better than to really think "race mixing" is just a silly thing to worry about. However, when polled 26% of Alabama citizens opposed lifting the ban, while 10% were "not sure." So, just because a lot of people agree with some crack-pot, podunk, fundie way of thinking, doesn't mean the law should follow them. Two years earlier, 62% of South Carolinans supported lifting their interracial marriage ban, which means 38% of voters thought the ban was just fine.
3. Not everyone beleives that interracial marriage and homosexual marriage have any parallels. One Georgia pastor said "“To connect this to civil rights, to the rights of an individual, is absolutely intolerable,” he said. “Being black is not a sin. I rest my case there.” and another said “The interracial marriage ban was clearly built on a history of preserving the idea of racial purity and racial superiority of one race over another,” she told BP. “The requirement that a man and a woman be the applicants for a marriage license is not built on a history that men are superior to women or that women are superior to men.”
So to sum up, being gay is a sin, and the law of the land should reflect that. So much for this being a secular debate, no? And the crack about our laws not implying that women (who, in case you hadn't heard, should conduct themselves as if they are pre-pregnant at all times) are lesser than men in the eyes of the law? Priceless. I have never heard of a law that prohibits medical procedures for men. The point is, both bans are based on a contempt, if not outright hatred for those being "banned." Even though you cannot really use legislation to make people not hate; it shouldn't cowtow to haters.
4. Matrimony is a religious sacrement, a covenant with god. Marriage is a legal ceremony documenting the formation of a union between two people. If your religion says that gay people should not be married, then your church should not host gay weddings. But to ask the population at large to adhere to your backward-ass, antiquated beleifs is just silly (yes, that is a judgemental statement, I realize this). I don't ask fundies to dance naked around a bonfire and have cerimonial sex with me, because I don't assume everyone does what I do (not that I do that, I'm just saying).
5. The Children. Everyone is always crying about how homosexuals are ruining the children even though there is no evidence to support this. There have been homosexuals around for as long as humans have been fucking, and we're still populating the world and raising a few good kids here and there. Gay parents do not neccesarily raise gay children (but so what if they did?), any more than straight parents always raise straight kids. And you know, I cannot think of a single serial killer who was raised by gay parents. By that logic, straight parents are the ones you need to keep an eye on.
6. I've heard many people say that "if gays get married, what next? People will want to marry dogs and farm animals, what about three people who want to marry? What about incest?" To you I say, that if you can't tell the difference between a homosexual marriage and one involving dogs or siblings, you have no business being part of this discussion. Personally, so long as everyone involved is a legally sane, consenting adult, it's not really anyone else's damn business.
7. But but...our rights? Yes, there are some tax and insurance benefits to people who marry. But I've seen no evidence to suggest that affording thse benefits to gays will somehow cause the US economy to collapse. The main benefit of marriage is that you can choose your legal next of kin. This way, if anything happens to you your choices can be made by your life partner, and not the fuckwit parents who threw you out of the house when you came out.
A year or so ago, I challenged any or all of you to present a secular argument for supporting a ban on gay marriage. No one did. So if I'm right, and everyone agrees with me, what are we still talking about this for?
And of course, I am an ordained minister and will be happy to marry anyone who asks me and is not a total asshat.
I learned in grade school that the difference between Republicans and Democrats is that democrats want more and bigger government, while Republicans want less. Much like that whole George Washington/Cherry Tree kerfluffle, it appears that my teachers filled my head with lies, and then quizzed me on them.
I can't imagine that anyone on my friends list would actually be so archaic as to suggest that two single adults who love eachother should not be allowed to marry. Then again, my last poll brought to my attention that a few of you think censorship is A-OK and that horrors in other countries are not a big deal. :-(
So let me just tell you all a few things:
1. There is no shortage of children in this country and no reason at all to insist that people procreate. Plenty of kids are in inadequate schools, unable to see doctors, and are even starving. And we all know that the real reason people want to ban gay marriage has nothing to do with procreation anyway. If it did, those who chose not or could not have children would also not be allowed to marry. And of course, if we were really going to make legislation to better marriages, we would insist on waiting periods, mandatory counseling and education before marriage. We'd also criminalize adultery and verbal abuse, hell...we might even go so far as to prosecute spousal rape, which we almost never do.
2. I've heard people say that since lots of people want a constitutional ban on gay marriage, it should be discussed. Obviously people feel both ways about it. But let's look at the US's last big marriage controversy: For those of you who don't know, Alabama was the last US state to lift their legal ban on interracial marriage. Not in the 60's, not in the 70's, but in 2000. That's right, 2000. So the vote was just a formality right? By 2000 surely everyone knew better than to really think "race mixing" is just a silly thing to worry about. However, when polled 26% of Alabama citizens opposed lifting the ban, while 10% were "not sure." So, just because a lot of people agree with some crack-pot, podunk, fundie way of thinking, doesn't mean the law should follow them. Two years earlier, 62% of South Carolinans supported lifting their interracial marriage ban, which means 38% of voters thought the ban was just fine.
3. Not everyone beleives that interracial marriage and homosexual marriage have any parallels. One Georgia pastor said "“To connect this to civil rights, to the rights of an individual, is absolutely intolerable,” he said. “Being black is not a sin. I rest my case there.” and another said “The interracial marriage ban was clearly built on a history of preserving the idea of racial purity and racial superiority of one race over another,” she told BP. “The requirement that a man and a woman be the applicants for a marriage license is not built on a history that men are superior to women or that women are superior to men.”
So to sum up, being gay is a sin, and the law of the land should reflect that. So much for this being a secular debate, no? And the crack about our laws not implying that women (who, in case you hadn't heard, should conduct themselves as if they are pre-pregnant at all times) are lesser than men in the eyes of the law? Priceless. I have never heard of a law that prohibits medical procedures for men. The point is, both bans are based on a contempt, if not outright hatred for those being "banned." Even though you cannot really use legislation to make people not hate; it shouldn't cowtow to haters.
4. Matrimony is a religious sacrement, a covenant with god. Marriage is a legal ceremony documenting the formation of a union between two people. If your religion says that gay people should not be married, then your church should not host gay weddings. But to ask the population at large to adhere to your backward-ass, antiquated beleifs is just silly (yes, that is a judgemental statement, I realize this). I don't ask fundies to dance naked around a bonfire and have cerimonial sex with me, because I don't assume everyone does what I do (not that I do that, I'm just saying).
5. The Children. Everyone is always crying about how homosexuals are ruining the children even though there is no evidence to support this. There have been homosexuals around for as long as humans have been fucking, and we're still populating the world and raising a few good kids here and there. Gay parents do not neccesarily raise gay children (but so what if they did?), any more than straight parents always raise straight kids. And you know, I cannot think of a single serial killer who was raised by gay parents. By that logic, straight parents are the ones you need to keep an eye on.
6. I've heard many people say that "if gays get married, what next? People will want to marry dogs and farm animals, what about three people who want to marry? What about incest?" To you I say, that if you can't tell the difference between a homosexual marriage and one involving dogs or siblings, you have no business being part of this discussion. Personally, so long as everyone involved is a legally sane, consenting adult, it's not really anyone else's damn business.
7. But but...our rights? Yes, there are some tax and insurance benefits to people who marry. But I've seen no evidence to suggest that affording thse benefits to gays will somehow cause the US economy to collapse. The main benefit of marriage is that you can choose your legal next of kin. This way, if anything happens to you your choices can be made by your life partner, and not the fuckwit parents who threw you out of the house when you came out.
A year or so ago, I challenged any or all of you to present a secular argument for supporting a ban on gay marriage. No one did. So if I'm right, and everyone agrees with me, what are we still talking about this for?
And of course, I am an ordained minister and will be happy to marry anyone who asks me and is not a total asshat.
no subject
no subject
no subject
Let people marry who they want!!! I really wish I could go to a gay wedding to show my support.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
I figured that was a joke, as putting it in at all was kind of a joke. Fear not, I'm well aware that you have a reasonable stance on well...everything.
And yeah, *shakes fist* you bettah get back to me on that!
;-}
no subject
A particularly narrow-minded redneck friend of my husband's tried to use #6 on me to convince me how wrong I was. But instead of using dogs or potted plants or whatever as the example, he said to me, "Well, if gays can get married, I should be able to marry my own grown children!"
I pondered. I shuddered. I thought, "GROSS!" I thought, "Twisted, yucky!" Exactly what he wanted from me. But I continued to think. If both parties are over the Age of Adulthood (which I would argue should be 21 for almost everything, but that's another story for another time), and there was Nothing Illegal Going On when the offspring was a child, and both parties are of sound mind...then as gross as I find it, yes, it should be their right to do so if they wish. It's a societal taboo, pure and simple. Ancient Egyptian Pharoahs used to marry their sisters, mothers, whatever. Yes, NOT good for the blood line in the long run, yes there are valid reasons for thinking a VERY long time before procreating with someone that close a relation...but we're talking about marriage, not procreation. I wasn't even assuming a mixed-gender pairing that COULD result in children.
So I said to him, "You know, I find that idea repulsive. That's just gross." He got all smug. And I went on, "But you know, that's just another societal taboo, so I have to say, that's true. You should have the legal right to marry *whomever* you want, regardless of blood relation, assuming you're both consenting adults, blah blah blah."
I went on to explain why I thought the concept that monogamous marriage = okay while polygamous marriage = not okay was just dumb too. He looked very crestfallen.
BTW, I presented the same challenge in my LJ, and heard only crickets. Still have yet to hear a valid secular argument for banning gay marriage.
no subject
But yeah, I don't think there is a valid secular argument, which is one of the reasons I get so infuriated. It's as if we have to constantly remind people that not everyone is a Jesus booster.
no subject
no subject
no subject
A group of two or more consenting adults who make a long term commitment to share finances and living space.
That's it. Basically marriage is what we call it, so call it what you want.
no subject
Firstly: Why do people care so much about other people's buisness?! I think if anyone wants to get married, they should. It's just a symbol.
Second: Why should it be a law? I thought we made sure there was a difference between the state and religion. It doesn't matter WHAT religion, just any religion.
In Canada we pretend we don't have the problem, but we do. We just keep it quiet and make everyone think we just get high instead. :D
no subject
What's the deal up there, eh? ;-}
no subject
Jerry SpringerThe Daily Show.Currently it's legal, but our current government wants to get rid of that bill.
no subject
Do you also get Colbert Report up there?
Check him out on youtube if you don't. He's my hero.
no subject
no subject
no subject
OH LOOK AT THOSE GAYS>... *GULPS DOWN OIL TEA*
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
I wish this country could just come to its senses and move on to issues that really threaten us all, gay and straight, like civil rights for instance.
no subject
That's along the same lines as the whole "what gay people do is disgusting" argument which basically means "when I picture gay sex in my mind, it's gross to me." It has nothing to do with reality.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
All were excellent points my friend!
And i'm a web ordained minister too! Lets do double gay weddings, when it's legal. If we are still alive.
no subject
I did not actually know the origin on the word mullatto. I should have guessed it was terribly offensive though.
no subject
no subject
no subject
I figured I'd ask for clarification before I started arguing the point.
no subject
I'm not sure if you're disputing Washington's involvment in breeding mules:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Studios/2905/washington.html
Or the offensive origins of the word:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulatto
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=mulatto
no subject
If you would just read what I wrote instead of jumping to the conclusion that I must be trying to start something you might notice that I disputed neither.
no subject
no subject
I'm out.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject