So, what about YOUR marriage, HMMMM???
And, to bitch a little more about this whole Proposition 8 thing … this video is fucking brilliant. I'm so glad someone else brought up the bit about stoning your bride to death on her father's doorstep if you discover she's not a virgin on your wedding night. The Bible is waaaay more explicit about that than it is about homosexuality.
Thanks to The Gay Atheist for the twitter link.
Great video….f*cking hypocrytes in California. Live and let live America.
29th May 2009 at 2:51 pm | permalink |Echoing the "great video" comment above.
I still can't believe that there are still religious nutjobs that take anything that damn book says to heart!
Nice to know that I was possibly pissing off the religious crowd, as well as the racist crowd, by dating a black woman years ago!
:D
30th May 2009 at 1:44 pm | permalink |@waterguy: That's what I don't get… even the Bible says judgement is God's business. Soooo… whether they think homosexuality is sinful and wrong or not, it's not their place to judge, according to their OWN rulebook! *shrug*
@JX: Yeah, that's the thing… they don't take everything the book says to heart, they take anything that suits them to heart. Y'don't hear 'em calling for the stoning to death of teenage girls who have sex before marriage… y'don't hear 'em calling for a ban on remarriage after divorce… y'don't hear 'em asking to ban blended fabric (I think it was wool and linen, specifically?), or cheeseburgers (mixing meat and dairy), or shellfish… but gay marriage?!?!?! HOLY FUCK! DON'T LET THOSE FAGGOTS GET HITCHED!!!!!!
Fucking hypocrites.
30th May 2009 at 2:38 pm | permalink |Clarity struck me today on this issue while working on my sprinkler system. There are male parts and there are female parts. No matter how hard you want it to work, you just ain't gonna put two like-gendered parts together and have a viable system. Don't FUCK with a perfectly good design.
Some things are really so simple.
30th May 2009 at 3:40 pm | permalink |Jeez Dave, If you think the human condition is akin to your sprinkler system, I think you should stay out in your yard and not try to delve into important social questions. The truth of this matter is, its your right to think the way you do, but you do not have the right to tell others how to think. As a practicing bi-sexual, I have to tell you that your missing at least half of some wonderful experiences.
30th May 2009 at 4:25 pm | permalink |@Dave: So, you're fundamentally against oral and anal sex, no matter the respective sexes of the participants? Because unless you're saying penile/vaginal intercourse is the ONLY valid & acceptable form of sexual activity, your argument holds about as much water as my colander.
@waterguy: Exactly … that's my whole point with the marriage thing: Everyone has the right to live their personal lives as they see fit, whether they want to have straight-up traditional missionary-only sex or not.
How hard is that to grasp?!
30th May 2009 at 6:10 pm | permalink |Oh so love this blog. I've been trying to very seriously, get some religious followers to post on my blog, but alas I can get no one. I'm trying to find out real answers. Not if you oppose being gay, I don't care about YOUR orientation. But WHY do you care so much about someone elses? and WHY do you feel it will ruin your marriage if they are allowed to marry as well?
http://busymomma.com/2009/05/27/gay-marriage-questions/
30th May 2009 at 6:25 pm | permalink |http://survivingtheworld.net/Lesson167.html
Picking and choosing indeed.
31st May 2009 at 4:16 am | permalink |@Val: I'm a little short on religious folk around here too, for some strange reason. ;-)
And yeah, I really wish someone could explain to me how they think a married gay couple has any influence on their own or anyone else's marriage. Personally, I think abusive relationships are a lot more of an affront to the idea of marriage than a loving, happy gay couple ever could be.
@Lana: That's lovely. :-) And exactly my point.
31st May 2009 at 7:08 pm | permalink |@ Dave: I think you've mistaken a moment of clarity for a petit-mal seizure.
If the "parts fitting" is your sole criteria, then fuck it–let's just start pairing up random men and women regardless of whether or not they love each other. We'll just make them marry by majority vote … right?
But we're supposed to accept that your inability to think about something outside of your white, male, heterosexual, bastion of ignorance and stupidity is justification for imposing your donkey-fucking retardedness on the rest of the nation? Not just "No," but "Fuck No."
1st June 2009 at 2:04 pm | permalink |@ Val: You'll have a hard time finding religious types to post much about their faith because it's hard to defend rank idiocy.
It doesn't matter the religion. They're all in the same boat without a paddle.
1st June 2009 at 2:05 pm | permalink |@Becca: Actually, if "parts fitting" is to be the criteria, we're going to have to implement some kind of national measurement program. Each person's resulting size class will be part of their medical records, and much like folks used to need a blood test to get a marriage license, now they'll need to belong to compatible size classes.
And of course, any woman who prefers partners outside her appropriate size class is an unredeemable pervert who will be denied a marriage license for the donkey-dicked Romeo she had her sick little heart set on. As it should be.
1st June 2009 at 2:13 pm | permalink |But men who want something outside their size range are admirably aspirational… =p
Of course, we would also have to ban infertile people from getting married, and dissolve any marriage where one partner became infertile to replace them with a real wife (cos it's always women who're infertile, right?).
But really, aside from the patently obvious "mind your own fucking (ahem) business" thing, legally speaking whether a couple's bits fit together are entirely irrelevant. Lawrence vs Texas basically means that what goes on behind closed doors is none of the government's business, so opposing gay marriage simply because of the assumed (but not guaranteed) sexual activity is not only stupid, but legally unfounded as well.
1st June 2009 at 10:21 pm | permalink |@grimbles: Nono. Fertility has nothing to do with it … it's just whether or not the parts fit!
But just imagine if a man lost his penis in a tragic accident! NO MORE MARRIAGE FOR YOU, BUDDY!!!!
But what do we do about the hetero couples who don't want to do anything BUT oral and anal?! Even though their parts fit, THEY'RE NOT USING THEM RIGHT!!!! We might need to start reinstituting and enforcing sodomy laws.
2nd June 2009 at 2:28 am | permalink |Not to mention all those guys who need viagra. Though, since viagra makes a metric fuckton of money, I guess an exception can be made.
Ahh! Since we're allowing exemptions on the 'making things fit' requirement for 'aids' that make money… Simple answer: allow gay marriage but require lesbian couples to purchase a strap-on before tying the knot, and similarly require male couples to purchase a fleshlight.
Problem solved, the world can be at peace.
2nd June 2009 at 6:23 am | permalink |@ all skate: See, there you go over-thinking again. Just because you have a brain that has firing synapses doesn't mean those thoughts/ideas are necessarily valid. (and I might be overstating the fact that all here have brains that are in good working order!) I'm pretty sure that the bits were originally designed for procreation. (regardless of their compatible dimensions) Somewhere along the way some herdsman thought it was a good idea shag sheep because it must've felt good. Thankfully, I wouldn't know.
"If the "parts fitting" is your sole criteria, then fuck it–let's just start pairing up random men and women regardless of whether or not they love each other. We'll just make them marry by majority vote … right?" In a scenario where, oh, let's say something as impossible as a worldwide flu pandemic wiped out all but a small number of humankind, my model would certainly do more to perpetuate the species than sticking your parts where it feels the best…right? I guess I'm just fucking weird for seeing penile-vaginal sex as something "normal." But I'm not necessarily bound to that act only – with my female mate, that is. Oh, and yes, she's human.
4th June 2009 at 7:34 am | permalink |Ah, OK Dave. So it really IS all about procreation, then? Because if the reason male-female marriage is good & same-sex marriage is bad is due to the procreation thing, then we'll be needing to institute fertility tests prior to granting marriage licenses…
Nobody here tried to say penile-vaginal sex was abnormal, all we're getting at is that one's preferred sex act should have fuckall to do with whether or not a person is allowed to get married.
The problem here isn't that we're overthinking, it's that you spout out arguments without thinking them through thoroughly enough to figure out if they're logically defensible or not.
4th June 2009 at 3:48 pm | permalink |BAHAHAHAHA, call it like they post it babe.
I love a good debate, but you have to be able to defend your point of view. lol Doesn't matter if we think it's right, but if you can't defend it then we know you are just being brainwashed into the typical bible-belt coma where a few tell many how to vote and think. Go with that, see how far it gets you.
My God lets me have free thinking. My God loves everyone and wants everyone to be happy no matter their choices as long as they are not hurting anyone. But alas, some seem to follow a hateful God and that is sad. :(
4th June 2009 at 4:46 pm | permalink |"I'm pretty sure that the bits were originally designed for procreation"
And those of us who haven't got our heads up our arses are pretty sure they weren't designed.
'Sides, animals love the gay sex too. Penguins, monkeys, dolphins. Turn on the cheesy porn music, cos gay sex is *gasp* (not that kind) natural!
"In a scenario where, oh, let's say something as impossible as a worldwide flu pandemic wiped out all but a small number of humankind, my model would certainly do more to perpetuate the species than sticking your parts where it feels the best…right?"
It would. But we're not there, in fact there's possibly more people in the world than there really should be, depending which max. sustainable population sumbers. So, uh, thanks for providing an argument in favour of gay sex.
It's also worth noting that way back when the old testament was being formulated, population was way more important for a culture's survival than now. So non-reproductive sex was considered anathema. Oh, on that note, if we're going with biblical literalism masturbating, oral sex, in fact anything that doesn't involve semen entering the (married) vagina is *drumroll* sintastic.
Thing is, you say that sex that doesn't make use of the 'intended' alignment of bits is wrong, yet you admit to doing some of your own non-vaginal intercourse. Where are you drawing the distinction between a woman sucking on a penis and a man sucking on a penis. Dependent on sexuality, both are enjoyed by the owner of said penis. Neither make babies. And it's not unnatural, since animals do it (well, not sure about oral specifically…), so where exactly is your 'gay sex is wrong' thing coming from?
If it's from the bible, then you're just a fucking (literally) hypocrite, since wasted seed is such a sin. And one assumes you shave, and do forbidden stuff (read: something, anything) on Saturdays. It's unlikely you've never worn blended fabrics. Ever hugged your SO while she was menstruating? Big no-no.
4th June 2009 at 7:13 pm | permalink |OK, I've found the definitive word on Biblical/Christian traditional marriage. God bless Betty Bowers!
http://mvx.cc/BiblicalMarriage/
4th June 2009 at 9:20 pm | permalink |Classic.
4th June 2009 at 10:36 pm | permalink |That was a well done YouTube vid.
In this "blog of Godless iniquity" intelligence and contemplative debate is thought to be the order of the day. Now I'm supposed to embrace gay sex because monkeys and dolphins do it? Just point me to a good monkey and penguin blog and I'll take it up with them. And thank you for making the point as to the relative level of this discussion.
Why does every bloody issue have to be argued and debated ad nauseum? Keep marriage between a man and a woman, have all the gay sex you'd like in the privacy of your…tree and create some equitable civil-union-du jour and get on with it. I never said "gay sex is wrong." I was merely pointing out that in my twisted little world, two bolts does not a fastener make.
And Ebenezer grimbles, ("…decrease the surplus population") in case you hadn't noticed, our ability to facilitate our own genocide has increased exponentially since Biblical times. We have the means to put infected peoples on airplanes and fly them to the four corners in 24 hours or so. We have vast arsenals of atomic weapons that will clean up what the pestilence leaves behind. So I would argue keeping bits for procreation is ever more important.
5th June 2009 at 7:11 am | permalink |Good work on quoting me on something I didn't say.
Sure, we might at some point in the future require a massive population surge. But as I said *we're not there*. Plus, whether bits are used for fun or only babies is irrelevant in regard to marriage. Even the end of the world isn't going to change someone's sexuality – regardless of the species' need, lesbians'll still be into chicks, and gays'll still be into guys. And even if lesbian wombs were suddenly needed for the survival of the race, female tongues between female legs aren't going to change their ability to carry to term.
Also, I was not suggesting that you embrace gay sex, merely that your reasoning regarding it being 'unnatural' was faulty.
You have provided no legitimate reason for keeping marriage between a man and a woman (being as how those you have proffered here and elsewhere are are dependent on the acceptance of hypocrisy and/or selective hearing). And as I pointed out, civil unions for gay couples with the same rights as a married hetero couple would be unconstitutional, so it's not a realistic option.
But of course it's much easier to ignore the underlying argument and be indignant about various tilts at tongue-in-cheek enjoyment of the discussion. Cos we all know no-one's allowed to enjoy something (let alone sex) unless you approve.
5th June 2009 at 7:54 am | permalink |I'm guessing your accusation of a misquote was referring to the Dickens quote from "A Christmas Carol." ("…decrease the surplus population") I thought your quote, "…in fact there's possibly more people in the world than there really should be…" was right out of the mind of Charles Dickens. Only he was writing fiction. Now you're really scaring me. What's next, the Zyklon B treatment for the straight and infirmed?
Is there a legitimate reason for there being a "men’s” room and “women’s” room when I really have to take a whiz after a long day on the road? (and mine is locked) Should I start a blog and rail against the discriminatory concept of two separate shithouses? Some things are simply the way they are. I guess somewhere, sometime, someone thought (probably based partially on religion and mostly on *gasp* a mutual attraction to the opposite sex) that marriage between a man and a woman was a good thing. I'm not espousing man-woman marriage on much more than, don't fuck with a good thing. I'll leave all of its possible religious and fertility quirks up to Y’all to blog about. Just don’t be too surprised if I show up on occasion with a different view – based on just how I see the world. I mean, I’m slightly different, should I have laws rewritten to accomodate my ideas?
5th June 2009 at 3:16 pm | permalink |@Dave: "What's next, the Zyklon B treatment for the straight and infirmed?" "I guess I'm just fucking weird for seeing penile-vaginal sex as something 'normal.'"
Can you find one single sentence anywhere in any of our comments where we say heterosexual relationships are a bad thing? Can you find anywhere that any of us said heterosexuality is ABnormal?! NOBODY SAID THAT. Why do you INSIST on putting nonsensical words in our mouths, rather than just presenting your argument and defending it on its own merits?
"Don't fuck with a good thing"? "Don't FUCK with a perfectly good design"?
We're not. We're not suggesting "fucking with" ANYONE'S relationship. We're not arguing in favor of banning hetero marriages. We're not trying to enforce a nationwide policy of sterilization and enforced homosexuality. NOBODY IS.
That's the fucking problem with right-wing bigotry. People spout all this propaganda about the liberal/homosexual "attack" on traditional marriage, and it's all utter horseshit.
NOBODY is saying hetero marriage is a bad thing. NOBODY is saying straight people should have fewer rights than gays. NOBODY is saying people shouldn't be allowed to get married to their virginal bride in a fancy church wedding and procreate happily ever after.
All we're saying is that gay people should have an equal right to get hitched and bicker happily ever after. What is so fucking scary about that?
5th June 2009 at 4:18 pm | permalink |God damn alphabitch. I've never seen it put so well. You go girl.
5th June 2009 at 4:31 pm | permalink |I could almost say the same thing. To wit: "Thing is, you say that sex that doesn't make use of the 'intended' alignment of bits is wrong" – grimbles. I never said it was, "WRONG." I simply pointed out the widely believed notion that sex had a, well, more noble purpose.
I suppose you could take my tongue in cheek – you just ain't gonna put two like-gendered parts together and have a viable system – as calling gay relationships "ABnormal." But doesn't your video example implying many hetero-marriages are invalid with all their Biblical infractions attempt to nullify some common hetero-relationships?
I guess it really boils down to the sheer volume your side projects on this debate. I’ve never attended a pro-straight / anti-gay marriage rally nor have I felt the need to bark to the world my stance on the subject…unless of course you use this blog as an example. I’ve said it before, I probably don’t belong here but I find it entertaining. I’m sure some are much more passionate than I over these issues but what was wrong with the way things used to be? And I ask that sincerely. Is it company benefits, etc? Or is it something else?
5th June 2009 at 5:29 pm | permalink |The video example implies that the conservative christian argument against gay marriage is bullshit because using the bible as a literal source of morality falls flat on its face in light of sanction slavery, rape, incest etc.
But the post on conservatives not understanding satire is elsewhere.
Again, you misquote me to take what I said out of context. You imply that I'm somehow in favour of stringent control over reproduction, when I was merely saying that when there are 6.something billion people in the world, suggesting non-procreative sex is putting the species at risk is absurd.
"what was wrong with the way things used to be?"
You mean aside from the blatant government sanctioned discrimination? There's the matter of being able to inherit or share income without being taxed orders of magnitude more than a hetero couple, next-of-kin status for visiting your partner in hospital, plus medical power-of-attorney that is a given for hetero married couples, but requires the filling out of a stack of forms for a gay couple. And in a country with nothing that evenly vaguely resembles a proper health system, you'd better believe that company benefits like health insurance are a big thing for gay couples, where partners can legally (and arbitrarily) be denied cover.
"Is there a legitimate reason for there being a "men’s” room and “women’s” room"
Yes. Because I don't want to have to wait 10 minutes to get into the toilet. *bam* Here 'til Thursday folks.
Seriously though, it's a prudery thing. The difference is, I've never heard of a legislated restriction on uni-sex bathrooms. Maybe there is, and I've just not heard it. Beyond the prudery (and the 'eww' factor of most public men's rooms), there's no real reason for the separation that I can think of. So yeah, it's a bit stupid. But you being forced to use one bathroom over another (or, diddums, going behind a tree on the aforementioned roadtrip) is substantially different to the significant extra financial and emotional burden placed an homosexual couples denied the right to marry.
Lastly, you're still yet to provide any reason to prohibit gay marriage. You have defended the right of hetero couples to get married, which is fine, because none of us have been attacking that right. In all seriousness, beyond 'that's how it is' and 'sprinkler system', do you have any reason at all to be opposed to gay marriage? And are you willing to defend said position, or just continue with the strawmen and irrelevant indignation?
5th June 2009 at 6:20 pm | permalink |Oh, and you're right, you've not said explicitly in this thread "gay sex is wrong".
However, you did say "No matter how hard you want it to work, you just ain't gonna put two like-gendered parts together and have a viable system. Don't FUCK with a perfectly good design."
And "Don't FUCK with a perfectly good design" sounds a lot like "don't have gay sex". Given that fucking with a good thing is implicitly a bad thing, it seems evident that you did *implicitly* say that gay sex was wrong.
Perhaps you're just being deliberately vague again so you can backtrack when the ground you're on begins to get shaky.
5th June 2009 at 6:30 pm | permalink |Here's the best reason for why it should not be allowed…at least in California: It was put to a democratic vote under an established system of garnering the required criteria to create a proposition. And it was voted down. That's how it works. Over $80M was raised by the two sides on the issue so it wasn't an aberration of justice that it didn't pass.
Gavin Newsome's commercial stating, "This door's wide open now. It's going to happen, whether you like it or not." did more harm to “the cause” than any right wing, conservative Christian group did. See, most people don’t like to be told, fuck you, it's going to happen whether you like it or not. And you know who a lot of those people were? Blacks and Hispanics…not necessarily white, Republican Christians. Jews were over 75% in favor traditional marriage, according to exit polls. The people, lots of different ethnic and religious peoples, have spoken. It’s as simple as that.
6th June 2009 at 5:55 am | permalink |So you're completely ignoring the fact that putting the rights of a minority up for majority vote is entirely unjust? Regardless of whether it was legally acceptable, it was not right.
That's one flawed reason for prohibiting gay marriage in one state of one country in the world. Do you have any real ones?
6th June 2009 at 7:20 pm | permalink |I have yet to hear ANYONE come up with ANY reasons to oppose gay marriage that actually hold up to scrutiny.
Even the Bible isn't terribly cut-and-dried on the subject of homosexuality, so that pretty much leaves, "Because I think anal sex is icky and lesbians just don't realize how much they need men."
6th June 2009 at 8:31 pm | permalink |Now you're both just arguing for the sake of arguing. The democratic vote is the system we have. Is it best? Wasn't it Churchill who said that a democracy is the worst kind of government…except for all the rest? If you indict California on this one, you indict the entire concept of a democracy. (to paraphrase Otter from Animal House) Most U.S. presidential elections (maybe all elections in general) are anything but a majority vote if you consider that most eligible voters don't even go to the polls. So, you get a leader (or result) elected by a few to represent the many.
But you just can't argue with this one in California. It was a vote made up of a wide cross section of peoples from one of the most diverse religious and ethnic demographics in the world. If the world were truly united, it might even look a lot like California. Sure we want one world, now?
Just wait 'til Muslims become a significant voting demographic in the U.S. Then you can probably kiss your right as a woman to even cast a vote, goodbye! But far be it from me to stand in the way of open borders and diversity…not.
7th June 2009 at 7:26 am | permalink |"Sure we want one world, now?"
Uh, I don't see humans on Mars… And I don't recall anyone here having advocated for global government.
Indicting democracy, hey. Well, from one perspective, yes. Because the system that we have for the most part is representative democracy. Prop8 was an example of direct democracy, which is almost universally panned for the large scale.
But again, you missed the part where putting the rights of a minority up for majority vote is wrong. Tyranny of the majority and all that. Plus, you said it yourself, the vote wasn't of every single Californian so it's not adequately representative. Direct democracy + voluntary voting = an entirely stupid way to decide on the rights of a minority.
It is hard to argue that rights are something that do not exist one moment, and exist the next. Legislatively, this is the case. But did the women's suffrage movement make denying women the right to vote wrong, or just rectify the existing wrong? What about suffrage generally? Religious freedom. Freedom from slavery. Just because laws existed back in the day to curtail these freedoms does not mean those laws were right. The legal process may have been followed in California, but the passage of prop8 didn't suddenly make it wrong for gay people to get married.
Technically, "it's the law" is a reason to oppose gay people getting married in California. But the spirit of the question about reasons for opposition is markedly different. We're asking not about the legal status, which is patently obvious, but what reason there is to deny rights to a minority.
Lastly, I suppose you think you're terribly clever harking back to your comments about the evils of open borders and diversity, but you fail to notice the fact that the 19th amendment expressly forbids your scenario from playing out. You also ignore the fact that the biggest Muslim country in the world has women's suffrage. Not to mention the fact that a number of Muslim majority nations have had female presidents compared to… oh, right, none. Plus, migrant Muslims are far more likely to be on the more progressive end. So next time you want to make a point, try not to choose such a pathetically shaky stereotype.
7th June 2009 at 8:54 am | permalink |Well, you're right about one thing. I do think I'm terribly clever. Call it a character flaw. Or perhaps it's just another seizure. That Becca, she is funny.
"You also ignore the fact that the biggest Muslim country in the world has women's suffrage." That's precisely my point about what a potential influx of Muslims might bring. I know this is off topic but take a look at these immigrant "progressives" from a not so distant London, England protest: http://i602.photobucket.com/albums/tt109/DocSausage/web_0203islam6.jpg
As for the 19th amenendment, my fear are those that have promoted the notion that the Constitution is a "living document" and should be subject to periodic updating. Nothing is in stone. Hell, what was really in stone is subject to debate…The 10 Commandments – to bring a little Bible back into this Godless, meandering topic. And I'm sure we've not heard the last from Prop 8. I'm just sayin'…
7th June 2009 at 10:06 am | permalink |Yes, because Muslims certainly have a monopoly on extremism. *cough*
So wait, you point about Muslim immigrants denying women's suffrage was that Muslim countries have women's suffrage? Guh? How do you get from "women's suffrage is generally accepted amongst Muslims" to "they iz going 2 stel womn's votes"?
Those who are promoting the idea of the Constitution as a living document? You mean, like the guys that provided a mechanism to periodically update it? Those damned pinko founding fathers.
The only reason this topic is 'meandering' is because you keep going off on tangents to attempt to justify your bigotry and avoid actually answering any questions. The former you're doing a piss-poor job of, the latter on the other hand, you're a master at that.
7th June 2009 at 7:14 pm | permalink |@ grimbles: One man may be a bigot. Millions of (wo)men, well, that's a culture, by definition. It wasn't me playing their Abbie Hoffman for traditional marriage. Get over it.
8th June 2009 at 6:23 am | permalink |What it is not by definition, is inherently right. There is also nothing precluding a culture from being bigoted. Just because millions of people believe gay marriage is wrong (or that women's suffrage is wrong). Obviously it does not inherently mean it is right either. The difference is, we've actually provided reasons, while you on the other hand… have not.
And really, you're scraping the bottom of the barrel if you're resorting to a bandwagon fallacy. If you do have an objective reason to justify your opposition to gay marriage, I would in all seriousness like to hear it. If you have little more than religious prejudice, just admit it. Or, make another feeble attempt to misdirect, which I will take as you acknowledging the groundless nature of your position.
8th June 2009 at 7:09 am | permalink |Democratic vote = "Bandwagon fallacy" Again, I didn't invent the system. But I am an ardent supporter…even when it doesn't go my way.
Reason: Sometimes you feel the way you do just because, well, you were born that way. There, does that resonate here in the F*C* realm?
8th June 2009 at 11:03 am | permalink |@ D.Watson: What the fuck are you talking about? If you're talking about the U.S. Constitution, then you're a complete fucking moron because you understand about 1/10th of it—usually the parts with "the" and "and" and the like. If you're talking about the bible (your 10 commandments reference above), then it has no relevance whatsoever because its some mysticism and bullshit that is only slightly better at providing guidance for everyday living than "Sesame Street."
There is a wonderful joke about the how the U.S. Supreme Court would respond to a light bulb that burned out. Antonin Scalia would argue that light bulbs weren't around at the time of the founding, clearly weren't contemplated by the Founding Fathers, and therefore, we should all just sit around in the dark instead of fixing the damned thing. Which is a typical conservative approach—wring your hands interminably about what possible disasters could befall us but do absolutely nothing except stick your head in the sand.
So, your ideals? Fuck your ideals. They encroach upon my life in very material, immediate ways. Your ideals put me in a class that relegates me to less than second-class status. Fucking tourists and immigrants can get married in the U.S., but I as a law-abiding, tax paying citizen cannot!? How fucking retarded is that!?
A simple majority vote is fine for a tax provision or ratifying an update of criminal statutes, but it is hardly appropriate for divesting an entire class of people with a fundamental right of existence.
Perhaps you (and Antonin Scalia) need to read the 9th Amendment a little closer.
8th June 2009 at 2:28 pm | permalink |Again, just because people vote for something doesn't make it right. And as you said yourself in relation to voter turnout – it's not even a representative vote.
As I have said previously, abiding by the law is not a valid reason to support something. It is a reason to abide by the law (since you love circular logic) but legality does not inherently confer merit.
But, really, it's nice to see that you've basically accepted that your reasoning boils down to 'because'. The problem is "I don't like it" is not a valid reason to curtail the rights of other human beings. Not even if there a lot of people who don't like it.
The only valid reason to place limits on a person or group's individual rights is if not doing so would put other people at risk, or have a detrimental impact on the rights of others that is more significant than the impact of losing the original rights.
Gay marriage does not harm anyone. It does not infringe upon anyone else's rights. There is no valid reason to prohibit it.
As for being 'born that way', bullshit. You may have been born to think 'ewww' about homosexuality, because being hetero it just doesn't do it for you. But marriage is not something that people are born into. It's a social construct, and suggesting you were born with a preconceived notion of a social construct is laughable.
8th June 2009 at 4:53 pm | permalink |@ D.Watson: I respect your right to your way of thinking, but I abhor your trying to push your beliefs on to me. You have spoken about womens suffrage, but isnt what you profess as the right way of thinking, gay suffrage? The abuse of one class of people by another? Would you support a notion that gays not be allowed to vote? It is just another legal right, as is marriage. I pity you for your small mind and narrow attitude. However, none of us on the f*cking C*nts blog will be swayed by your arguements.
8th June 2009 at 4:54 pm | permalink |Such predictable leftist "open mindedness." It's perfectly ok for the gay atheist to feel and think a certain way but that is providence for the like-minded ONLY. I mention that I too have innate convictions and that's stepping on your turf. And stirs up the ant hill.
Don't you see how this does more to thwart your efforts than most of what the opposition can muster? As with most special interests, you won't rest until YOUR way of thinking is THE way of thinking. Gay marriage, no prayer in schools, no Biblical references in government institutions, no Christmas, no Easter…and that's just the religious side. I have no idea how you intend to foist pro-gay issues on the rest of us. Straights to the back of the bus? I'd have to say that's the concern for "morons" like me. (Becca, I actually made it through another day w/o hurting myself. Aren't you proud of me?)
And waterdude, I'm not trying to change your mind. This is a court of opinion, nothing more, nothing less. You may now return to the deep. But obviously, there is room for only ONE opinion. You know, where "I don't like it" is not a valid reason but "I do like it" is.
9th June 2009 at 5:16 am | permalink |I'm terribly unhappy (*cough*) that I have to correct you again on your use of 'leftist'. Gay marriage is a civil rights issue. Which puts it on the libertarian-authoritarian scale, not the socialism-neolibertarian scale. Which means it's not about left or right.
You're welcome to your convictions. We're not questioning your right to those convictions, merely your 'right' to force those convictions on others. Sure, you might argue that allowing gay marriage is forcing convictions on you. But it doesn't diminish your life in any way other than what you do yourself. On the other hand, forcing your convictions on gay couples diminishes their life in pretty self-evident ways.
What I was objecting to was your assertion that you were born opposed to gay marriage. You're allowed to feel strongly about it. You're allowed to feel it's part of who you are. But it is not physically possible for it to be innate, because marriage is a concept that does not exist within our DNA. It'd pretty difficult to be hard-wired for something that isn't native to the hardware.
As for your list of (implicitly eeeevil) 'special interests'.
Gay marriage is a matter of equal rights. Given that last time I checked, pretty much half the population of the US (within the margin of error) was in favour of gay marriage. That's not a niche issue, or 'special interest'.
I'm not opposed to people praying at school, but mandatory prayer is not on. I would be fine with a few minutes set aside every day for 'reflection' or whatever the fuck, so those who want to pray – to whatever God they believe in – can, and people who don't, aren't forced to. I actually went to a school where there was prayer. But there were Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists. And non-theists. We weren't required (or even expected) to join in, just so long as we didn't interrupt with dick and fart jokes.
I have no problem with religious references being symbolically a part of government activity. Y'know, opening prayer type stuff, swearing on the bible for those who want to. The moment biblical stuff starts creeping into policy is when it becomes an issue for me. Also, that's when it becomes an issue for the US Constitution.
Christmas hasn't been a religious holiday for so damned long. Perhaps it's different up yonder since you guys have thanksgiving, but Christmas in Australia is very much the big end of year get together with family holiday. Fuck doing away with it. It's a great excuse for a few days of excessive consumption of food and drink. Same goes for easter, and damn if choc-chip hot cross buns aren't fucking ambrosia. I'll grant, there are some hardcore fuckwits in your neck of the woods. Banning nativity scenes is just batshit loco. But I don't recall anyone here advocating for that. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm certain I never have.
No-one here is trying to 'foist pro-gay' issues. For one, it's pretty hard to foist an issue. A point of view on an issue can be foisted, but the issue has more than one side, and thus is pretty much immune to foisting. Nit-picking aside, what we want is not 'pro-gay' things, but the end to anti-gay things. Equal rights is not about pro-anything except *pro-rights*. Unless you're interpreting it in such a way that feminism (of the equal rights for women, not the 'we hate men' kind) is pro-woman and thus inherently sexist. In which case you're just a douche. =D
Or a moron, if you seriously think that that majority of gay rights proponents want to somehow diminish your rights as a heterosexual. Please, refer me to the place where any of us have said "lets stop straight couples getting married". Outside of satire, obviously.
Regarding the validity of your reasons, well, whether I like your opinion is not relevant to its validity. Its whether you can provide any evidence in support of its validity, which you have thus far failed to do. You have every right to thing gay marriage is icky and unholy. But one of the founding principles of your own country is that people should not have the religious views of the majority forced upon them.
Your reasons that you have thus for offered are religious sympathies, personal distaste, and 'public opinion'.
As I just mentioned, the USofA is all about being able to practice your own beliefs without the interference of others. The first amendment (in conjunction with the 14th, to cover the states) prohibits the application of religious belief to lawmaking without a secular purpose. So religion in and of itself is not a valid reason for prohibiting gay marriage. That's not me, or alpha, or becca. That's the constitution.
Personal distaste. Uh, yay? It's all well an good for you not to like gay marriage, but if "I don't like it" were a valid reason to prohibit something, I could hypothetically justify prohibit you from getting married. Cos, y'know, I'd hate to think how twisted your children would end up. Or something. But that's none of my business. I have the right to make decisions about myself and myself alone. Your opinion is of no significance in regard to the rights of others, specifically to avoid the arbitrary lawmaking that went (and still goes, in some parts of the world) hand in hand with Monarchism.
Public opinion. Generally speaking, an okay way to run a country. But it's not foolproof, as November 2000 showed (bam!). I would contend (and invite you to provide a supported opinion to the contrary if you disagree) that something that is wrong is always wrong, regardless of the public opinion. In other words, even though slavery was seen as a-okay throughout much of history, even in the 'civilised' world, we know now that it was all kinds of wrong. To assume that we are currently at our peak as a civilisation, that we know everything that is right and wrong with all certainty is a fine example of hubris (which precedes…). Historically public opinion has got it wrong some of the time. There is no reason to suggest that public opinion isn't still getting things wrong. This of course does not mean we do the opposite of public opinion. It does mean that public opinion alone – without any actual justification beyond a whole bunch of people thinking it's icky – is not a reason to deny equal rights to a minority.
So. Please, offer some kind of support for your reasons. Defend your position. I am quite serious when I say that I'm interested to hear what you have to say, assuming you actually have anything to say.
9th June 2009 at 8:27 am | permalink |@ (who else?) grimbles: The 'ol baffle 'em with bullshit tactic. And I like circular argument? What is this, a contest of sheer verbiage? I voted in favor of traditional marriage because that was where my heart and head was. That is my position and that is my defense. I could write irrelevant reams or prose citing a multitude of right wing, conservative and Judeo-Christian dogma. But that wasn't the impetus for my decision.
No doubt that a Christian upbringing had some bearing on my perspective but was not the sole reason. It really and truly is something that seems to be in my DNA whether you say that is physiologically possible or not. We humans may be born with essentially a clean slate but I think some things like kindness and generosity are simply "in there."
Oh, in regard to my opinion having no significance to the rights of others. It does when put to a democratic vote.
So, you can once again say my position is no position. My defense is no defense. But that doesn't make it so. You seem to like to have the last word so go right ahead, a clear box awaits you below. But I'm ready to move on. Bet I can get a big Amen on that one!
9th June 2009 at 10:55 am | permalink |@Davie Watson, to that thought I can finally agree with you and give you a giant AMEN. Move on Davie and make sure you make nothing but RIGHT turns.
9th June 2009 at 1:37 pm | permalink |@Dave: "I have no idea how you intend to foist pro-gay issues on the rest of us. Straights to the back of the bus? I'd have to say that's the concern for "morons" like me."
Seriously? You're actually afraid that if the US lets gay people get married, the next step is going to be somehow devaluing or oppressing heterosexuals?!
That is the stupidest fucking thing I ever heard.
So, your "arguments" either boil down to being afraid that gays are going to suddenly start making life hell for straight people (y'know, like how blacks started forcing whites into the ghettos after they got legal equal rights), and you're squicked out by the idea of same-sex relationships in general, and therefore everyone's personal lives should be legally limited by your personal standards of yuckiness.
Yep, I'd say either one is a pretty indefensible argument.
I'm sorry you think two guys getting it on is icky. I sympathise. I think the idea of two right-wing, wannabe-authoritarian bible-thumpers getting it on and spawning more right-wing bible-freak bigots is icky, but I haven't figured out a legally defensible way to stop them…
9th June 2009 at 3:08 pm | permalink |Taken from Anywhere, USA local newspaper:
Last night a local man, Mr. D. Watson was attacked in his home by two homo's, who turned him gay and made him marry his neighbor, Mr. Isuck Yu, a 94 year old gay ex-wrestler. In an interview, Mr. Watson explained, "I told everyone what would happen but no one beleived me." The interview had to be cut short when Mr. Watson saw two pro-medical marijana advocates coming his way.
9th June 2009 at 4:29 pm | permalink |@waterguy: Classic =D
@Dave:
There was no attempt at baffling with bullshit. If you find my post baffling it's because you're lacking some basic intellectual skills. I was addressing the points you had raised in your previous post. It's something you might want to try.
"I think some things like kindness and generosity are simply "in there."" This is quite possible. Probable even. But I fail to see how kindness and generosity motivate you to arbitrarily discriminate against a pretty sizeable chunk of the population.
'It was put to a vote'. Now provide some reason why public opinion is a valid reason to deny rights to a group of people. If a vote were to occur which banned, say, interracial marriage, would that be okay? What about a vote to outlaw Judaism? What about reintroducing slavery? Or prohibiting conservative Christians from procreating? Those things would not be granted legitimacy merely by virtue of a majority vote. If you can, provide an argument for why public opinion should be justification for the denial of rights.
I'm going to repeat something from my previous post since you seemed to have missed it: whether I like your opinion is not relevant to its validity. What challenges the validity of your position is the arguments I have offered in the defence of my position, and against your own. These arguments have gone unchallenged. That says to me you're either unable to provide any challenge, or are unwilling to abandon fallacies and hollow rhetoric. Feel free to prove me wrong on both of those.
9th June 2009 at 9:19 pm | permalink |@ Alpha
Stupid? Fears unfounded? One name: Michael Newdow. If this lunatic would have also been gay and pro gay marriage, who knows where he would stop. And Heaven forbid, if ascended to a position of power, yes, oppression would follow.
10th June 2009 at 5:19 am | permalink |