We’ve been told by our elected representatives and many religious leaders that we need to amend our constitutions to prevent the marriage of homosexuals. We must protect society…a society in which the following two stories only appears in local news outlets.
On July 26, a 22-year-old Channoah Alece Green of Falls Church, VA kicked her 4-year-old son out of her car on I-495 and knocked him down as he tried to get back into the car while she was driving away. [Washington Post, 27 Jul 05] I guess he’ll learn not to “backtalk” his momma. Meanwhile, another mother, 46-year-old Lori Heine of Zephyrhills, FL also kicked her (7-year-old) son out of the car and drove away. It seems he wanted a cheeseburger Happy Meal® rather than the McNuggets Happy Meal® his mother purchased for him. [St Petersburg Times, 28 Jul 05] I guess he’ll learn to keep his opinions to himself too.
So this is what we’re trying to protect? These are two examples out of thousands across this country. Thousands of children abused…thousands of spouses abused…that’s what we want to protect? Are we nuts? I don’t think so…I think many of us are a little like sheep, though…led quietly away to the slaughter so the shepherds “earn” their money and eat well.
Marriage started as a way to establish property rights. Even if I were to believe that it started in the Garden of Eden, like the religious fascists, the text clearly indicates that it had nothing to do with love…Eve was a gift to Adam…property. However, I understand that we now have evolved to the idea that marriage is an expression of love that extends beyond the civil contract, and that property rights (in most communities) exist for all parties to the contract…both of which are totally western concepts and have only recently arrived on the scene.
By the way, the whole idea of ancient man declaring a covenant between himself and woman in order to procreate…preposterous! Blood vows would never have concerned such petty matters…after all, a man could easily get another wife…wives, however, weren’t so lucky. (Sorry ladies!)
Now as any lawyer knows, equal protection under the law guarantees that both genders have the right to enter into contracts as they see fit, without regard to gender. Of course, both parties in a contract must be competent…but the relationship between competence and marriage is probably best left to another discussion. Suffice it to say that anyone who has spent time with married couples sometimes questions the competence of one or both parties.
So what’s the big deal? Do we need to create another class of people…the un-marry-able…like the untouchable of India…because we’re afraid of homosexuals? What good does that serve? Would we say that individuals with narcolepsy shouldn’t get married…after all, [tone=sarcasm] I understand they recruit people into their slothful way of life, sleeping all the time.
I guess the question is really “what do you fear” – surely you’re not ignorant enough to believe that homosexuals are child molesters (pedophilia is a mental disorder…homosexuality is not – though I suppose you might make the argument that it’s a biological disorder) or somehow able to “recruit” others to their “lifestyle” and are therefore to be feared.
Do we fear that God will destroy us, like Sodom, because we’ve allowed sin in our midst? Surely that can’t be the case…all the religious fascists I know are ready to meet their maker…and in most cases eager…besides, you didn’t think you were getting out of this world alive did you? [tone=humor; irreverence=mild] (Where’s that villainous laughter coming from?)
Do we fear that by not preventing homosexuals from getting married we’re encouraging them? Do you really think they’ll change because we’re not “encouraging” them? They’ve already proven, in many cases, that they’re ready to abandon church and family in order to not live a lie…they seem pretty motivated already. Besides, how well does that work in other areas…sex outside of marriage doesn’t seem to stop because we discourage it.
Do we fear that two people of the same gender might actually love each other and want to share their lives…that two homosexuals might actually show us what love and commitment are and what our (straight) marriages could be?
I think we must fear that if we allow them to get married next they’ll be wanting kids, just like us, and they’ll be getting all those tax deductions married folk get (ooh, wait…they’re actually better off not being married). For us, the world is better the way it is, and we don’t want things to change…we need to keep the power we’ve got – you know, “get all you can...can all you get...and sit on the can.” Besides, the next thing they’ll be wanting is for us to stop kicking our kids to the curb for voicing opinions, and we can’t have that…where would the politicians be without sheep to lead?
3 comments:
What if I think "legalized" homosexuality will contribute to the continuation of the moral decline of the United States (fully subjective, I know)? Can I then vote that way? or not? Isn't that built-in to the idea of "representation" - there isn't a safe-guard in the system to prevent me from "wrong thinking" (more subjective wording), that was left up to the masses, the "sense that belongs to the common" (the original meaning of "common sense").
Whether you thinks I am correct or not is irrelevant, no? I vote for what I think is best for myself and/or my family and/or my community and/or my country, no?
I'm not jumping on board with any particular group (ugh!). Just my own opinions, voted by me. Isn't that just as valid as your opinions, your take, your spin on the topic?
David
I am all for people casting their vote according to their opinions/beliefs...hell, that's what I do. However, we need to recognize that our freedom is not a safe-guard that prevents
"wrong thinking." In fact, a true democracy must ultimately go to the lowest common denominator...which is why Aristotle believed it would fail.
That being said, I subscribe to the motto that says "my rights end where yours begin." Until someone can reasonably explain how law (or an amendment for that matter) will increase the greater good, it should be a "moo point"...you know, like a cow's opinion (thanks Joey T.)...so until our "leaders" show us how this benefits a larger population, I suggest we hold their feet to the fire to get things done that will benefit a larger population.
First, good debate is never a waste of time...ideological ranting, maybe...so I do appreciate your comments, even when I don't agree with them.
Second, ministers (all along the spectrum) refuse to perform marriages every day for a variety of reasons...and none has, nor will one ever be, accused of a hate crime for such a refusal. Ministers also refuse to baptize/bless and perform funerals based upon a number of things...again, none of this qualifies as a hate crime. If I, as a protestant, attend a Roman Catholic service, the priest is supposed to refuse to allow me to participate in the eucharist...but that's not a hate crime.
Again, the problem here is that we confuse a religious ceremony with a civil contract. If marriage is a civil contract, there must be equal protection under the law. If marriage is not "equal opportunity" and is a ceremony based upon religious belief, there shouldn't be civil recognition of it. Now it might be that a marriage ceremony performed by a cleric is a religious recognition of a civil act...which is, in fact, how it is in most states. (Which is why you typically have to get a license from the county in which you're getting married.) Still, this is like having the cleric say a blessing for my dog...it would be unthinkable for me to be prevented from owning a dog (a civil act) because your church thinks people should only own cats (a religious belief).
Now, as for the whole "gay sex is wrong" thing...well, you and I disagree, but I was really trying to focus on the whole "our politicians should have better things to do" theme. However, since a few people have posted and commented about it, I might have to do an entry about it.
Post a Comment