Marriage is for the birds (but not the gay birds, mind you)
Feel free to stalk our every post with the f*cking c*nts RSS feed, subscribe to f-ckingc-nts.com by email, follow our new posts and random comments on Twitter, or become a fan on facebook. Go on. You know you want to! All the cool kids are doing it ...
There you have it folks, I couldn't care less about marriage on a personal level. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt (and by "t-shirt" I mean "divorce decree"). I don't plan on ever marrying anyone ever again, male, female or Martian. So, I really don't have any personal investment in the whole same-sex marriage issue, but I do find bigotry, in all its myriad forms, endlessly fascinating … in a very, "for fuck's sake, humans are soooo screwed up," sort of way …
The fundies say they don't want gays to get married, because homosexuality is a sin—among other smokescreen excuses, like protecting "tradition" and preventing the desecration of "the sanctity of marriage", all of which boil down to the same religious foundation, given that church marriage is a religious tradition and "sanctity" is a religious concept. Maybe in a theocracy those would be valid arguments, but the US isn't a theocracy, and basing legislation on religious foundations is antithetical to the first amendment.
And on the other side there are gay couples, and their open-minded supporters, who do want gays to be allowed to get married. Whether or not an individual same-sex marriage supporter is gay, or wants to get married themselves, or even thinks marriage is a good idea in general, we're not out campaigning to force our personal opinions down the entire nation's throats. I see the whole gay marriage issue not so much as a fight for a specific right, but as a fight for the principle of equality of choice and opportunity.
Now I'm sure there are also plenty of HMO directors and corporate HR departments (along with a bunch of poorly economically informed but morally neutral right-wing voters) who don't want to see gay marriage legalized for the simple fact of increased expenses associated with providing health benefits to all those "new" spouses and children. I think these tightwad motherfuckers might actually be the only honest opponents to liberalizing marriage laws, because underneath everyone else's Bible-thumping moralizing crusade, I think the widespread aversion to same sex marriage in the US boils down to a much more fundamental level of bigotry, which has fuck all to do with god, morality or virtue.
This hunch is supported by the fact that I've met a fuckload of small-minded homophobes in my day, who didn't give a flying fuck about the bible, or any preacher's mouth-breathing polemics about sin and the destruction of "Christian America". These are folks who couldn't list the ten commandments if their lives depended on it, but who'd still beat the fuck out of any man who grabbed their ass or, conversely, sourly accuse a confirmed bachelorette, or dedicated career woman, of being a lesbian … (or if the bigoted bimbos were teenage girls, they might beat the fuck out of the "lesbo" and put a video of it on YouTube).
"It's just unnatural and wrong," they'll tell you, with a look of abject disgust on their beady-eyed faces. Never mind the ubiquitous accounts of homosexual and gender-nonconforming individuals in virtually every human society about whom such things have been recorded—if the spontaneous existence of a certain variation throughout the recorded history of a given species isn't what qualifies something as "natural," I don't know what is.
The idea that gender bigotry isn't, at its ugly gut-level prejudiced core, a predominantly religious argument is not to grant the homophobic drooling masses any more credit. Hell no. If anything, I'm giving them less. My idea is that homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, and all of those other pathetic [insert maligned group here]-bashing tendencies are nothing more and nothing less than prehistoric tribal-herd instincts. The sort of mindless, atavistic bullshit that modern, civilized humans should have discarded decades ago.
Humans evolved in small, often violently competitive, tribal groups … not unlike wolf packs, in their tight-knit social structures and relative intolerance of outsiders. In an environment where primacy over the tribe's hunting and foraging grounds (and in later times, farmland and natural resources) could mean the difference between survival and starvation, the need to stick together and defend the group's wellbeing is undeniable. An individual who was broadminded enough to look at folks from neighboring tribes as friends and equals could potentially be the tribe's downfall.
You might also think that in such a society, the need to reproduce and maintain population levels might also lead to complete intolerance of homosexual behavior … but the need to maintain group solidarity seems to have outweighed socially mandated breeding, in many cases. A homosexual or transgendered individual could often become a shaman/healer, or a warrior, or a caregiver, or contribute in some other way to the tribe's safety and survival, without breeding. No pair of helping hands was to be discarded lightly.*
Fast forward to modern times. The instinct for conformity is still undeniably present in modern society. How else would the bullshit fashion and pop music industries survive? I mean, what are the odds that the vast majority of effeminate gay men are genetically predisposed to enjoy show tunes (although given that there is an apparent link between premature gray hair and dyslexia, this may not be impossible)? So, why the rampant gender intolerance in modern US society? Certainly, my little story thus far explains xenophobia and the rabid pseudo-tribal competitiveness of sports fans … but why turn on Bob from next door, just because he wants to marry John instead of Jane, especially if our tribal ancestors often did not?
It's pretty simple, in my mind … our emotionally safe little tribes, where there was a place for everyone, and everyone (for the most part) kept their place, are mostly gone. Wander into a really small town anywhere, and you'll see exactly how strong that ancient instinct still is … even the town axe murderer has his place. [added]However, I am not saying that small US towns are more tolerant of LGBT folk as a group at all … see this comment for clarification.[/added] But in a big city, and larger society as a whole, that tribal sense of solidarity-or-die seems to be gone.
Or is it?
My hypothesis is this: When humans live in a city (or, conceptually, an entire country) inhabited by so many people their little tribal brains can't begin to envelope the entire group as their do-or-die brethren, they start making up their own tribes. They rally behind the flag, the church, the NRA, their favorite bands, and so on and so forth. Each of these emotional associations becomes an erstwhile tribe, so when they wander off into the wide world, surrounded by unfathomable crowds of humanity, they can feel that needed sense of belonging when they run into someone with the same sports logo on their hat, or walk into a bar catering to their preferred social subculture.
In this fragmented, make-your-own-tribe society, individuals still feel that need for belonging to an exclusive group, but their tribes often have little to do with their immediate neighborhood. Individuals still feel the need to defend the cohesion of their group(s) against interlopers, but the interlopers can be their next door neighbors. In many cases, modern Western tribal distinctions have more to do with behavioral "territory" than actual geographic boundaries.
In historical tribal societies the imperative toward protectionism would be greatest when resources are scarce. When food really was in short supply, letting your neighbors encroach on your resources was a suicidal act … and in US society, being a "pull yourself up by your bootstraps," "every man for himself" culture, a competitive, protective mentality has always been encouraged, for better or worse, richer or poorer, etc. Desperation need not apply, we're already at each other's throats. As opposed to smaller European countries, with stronger traditions of communal support and more unified cultures (where, coincidentally, same-sex civil unions and marriage are becoming widely accepted), the US "melting pot" entrepreneurial culture ends up exacerbating these primitive instincts.
So, basically, gay bashing is a symptom of people attaching their identity to a subcultural "tribe" where homophobia is the equivalent of gang insignia. Whether that tribe happens to be a religious group (religion being one of the early and most militant promoters of what I think I'll call "psychological tribalism"), or simply some redneck bullshit loosely related to chrome mudflap girls and high school hazing, it's no matter.
It's US and THEM. Whoever THEY are, we know we are US and not THEM because THEY do not adhere to our behavioral standards, no matter whether that means THEY wear the wrong color loincloth when they're out hunting wildebeest, or THEY sleep with the wrong gender. Letting THEM get married would be the equivalent, in this mouthbreathing, hindbrain reasoning, to letting the neighboring tribe come and steal your cattle.
Is this bullshit all permanently ensconced in an irreversible, caveman lobe in every human's hindbrain? Fucking hell, I sure hope not. I like to think that a lot of us have grown beyond such primitive bullshit. A lot of us behave as though we have. The idea of women voting and going to school in the US is taken for granted now. The idea of slavery being unacceptable is a given. Even interracial marriage … still, absurdly enough, frowned upon by certain fuckwit oxygen thieves, is an irreversible legal right in today's world. All of these things had their roots in the same US and THEM crap, and progress on these counts has been virtually inexorable in modern times.
In the meantime, what to do about same sex marriage? Given that even gender-nonconforming straight folks still get shit on these days, the idea of full social acceptance for the LGBT crowd seems pretty distant. So I have a nice little work around to suggest:
If marriage is so fucking holy, and sanctified, and precious to the lord, leave it to him—or her, or them, or whatever your preference. Get your holy marriage the the fuck out of our supposedly secular law books. Don't let dirty politics pollute your holy business. Then we can let any two willing adults enter into a civil partnership contract, if they want legal recognition for their relationship … and if you and your beloved "partner" feel the need to get recognition in the eyes of god and church, let that be a matter between you and the religious leader of your choice. End of story.
Now I'm sure someone will bring up the whole pile of horseshit about the US being a "Christian Nation", and something about protecting the Christian morality of American society … but the fact is, we're NOT a Christian nation, and never have been. Regardless of the religious preferences of the founding fathers, there is no reference to god in the Constitution, and the only mention of religion in the Bill of Rights is to tell the government to stay the hell out of it … doesn't sound like the foundational documents of a theocracy to me.
American society has no universal standard of morality, save, perhaps, the idea that you shouldn't lie, murder or steal (at least not without a good enough reason that you can score an acquittal in court). Given that we're talking about the liberalization of marriage and childrearing in opposition to a large portion of society's moral opinions, why should same sex marriage be any more or less illegal than miscegenation? Lord knows, back when blacks and whites could first legally get married, it was a humongous scandal … ain't that quaint?
*Further information on 'third gender' integration in various early societies:
- Does the Vedic "Third Sex" Refer Only to "Eunuchs"?
- Syllabus for a graduate class on alternative gender/sexuality at the University of Hull
- Synopsis: "Third Sex, Third Gender, Beyond Sexual Dimorphism in Culture and History"
- Links on gender vs. sex issues (incl. historical references) from Indiana University
- Wikipedia: "Third Gender" Various roles of gender-nonconformist groups in various cultures
- Wikipedia: "Two Spirit" The concept in Native North American culture, and its historic roots
Actually cities tend to be more liberal and accepting of various groups than rural or small towns. This can been seen in voting patterns and laws passed.
I think you are overanalyzing the situation. For the religious it's simply against their belief system. The root of this is not questioned because like other things it is taken on faith when dealing with religion. To go back to root causes here would be folly since they are so mired in ancient history, unproveable pronouncements, and pure belief.
As for other reasons for homophobia for males you have the whole alpha male thing. Male dominance in a group comes into play when dealing with it. Why do you think teenage boys feel the need to prove their masculinity? They need to show they are an alpha type male.
A lot of people really don't care, but for many it is a wedge issue for some simple reasons. Homosexuality is a trait that is expressed in a minority. They are different from the whole. Human society tends to celebrate the whole, not the individual differences. Any person or group who is different will be suspect. The US legal framework has been developed to try and counteract this.
This is anectdotal but the most racist, or homophobic people I know tend to be from Western Europe. I am not saying the US is perfect but it's not as bad as you think.
The civil partnership vs. marriage thing is semantics. The fact is we often tie religious and civil ceremonies regarding marriage. There are reasons for both aspects of such a joining. Should they rely on each other? No. In fact you can have religious ceremonies w/o the legal and vice versa. comparing it to interracial marriage is not an exact match. Interracial marriage was based in simple racism, and besides race was the same exact thing. Gay marriage cannot bear offspring and does not conform to the standard gender roles. Apples to oranges imho.
A lst though. You are dealing with the force of hundreds of years of history. Look how long it took for the civil rights movement to make final headway. A lot of ppl while not very religious get married in a church because they are "supposed to." In time it will change but considering everything else going on will take some time because most ppl don't give a crap right now about pushing that.
11th June 2008 at 3:12 am | permalink |@Larry: Damn your timing, I was just about to go to bed! But I do want to address a couple of points in your comment really quick before that … then maybe I'll come back to the rest tomorrow.
1. I did not expand upon my small town comment well enough. Cities are DEFINITELY more tolerant of alternate lifestyles than small towns, if only (and I do think it's only) because a.) the sheer number of people guarantees there is a large-enough-to-be-vocal group of almost any major subculture you could name, and b.) there are enough different "tribes" within the city that almost everyone can find a group to fell comfortable with. Believe me, if it weren't for the "liberal elite" cities in the US, I'd've left the country already.
I ONLY meant to reference small towns as living proof that modern society has not killed tribal protectionist behaviors … however, I think the level of truly isolated tribal culture I'm referring to as largely inclusive has been utterly destroyed by modern Western culture. I should have been more explicit there, and I'll link that paragraph to this comment by way of explanation.
2.) Western Europe? Really? I find that really surprising, given that I've met people all over the US who are FAR FAR more intolerant than anyone I've ever met in Europe. Also Western Europe is the world leader for legalizing gay marriage/civil union.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you haven't spent that much time living in rural areas, or even small (~100,00ppl) cities in the US, have you?
3.) I don't think I'm over analyzing at all. This analysis doesn't just apply to homophobia, by a loooong shot … psychological tribalism applies equally to political animosity, militant radical feminism, any aggressive display of religious intolerance, jock vs. nerd animosity in school kids, and so on and so forth. It is any display of irrational animosity toward any category of THEM.
OK, now I make my link, and go the fuck to sleep. ;-)
11th June 2008 at 3:37 am | permalink |And one more thing, because sometimes I just don't know when to quit … heheh
Yes, racial integration in the US has taken a hugely long time to even get as far as it has (which is by no means close to complete equality). However, AFAIK, equality/integration for distinct races was rarely, if ever, the rule in early tribal societies … whereas it seems it often was (to a much greater extent) for gender nonconformists of various types.
Understandable, if only for the fact that a member of a different race was obviously not from the same tribe, whereas differently gendered individuals were born into the tribal group.
11th June 2008 at 3:49 am | permalink |I'm not sure why but even as an educated person I have the propensity to simplify things. I see no reason to stray from my norm here. Live and Let Live!!
I was born and raised in a small town but I went to college in Chicago and moved to Dallas after graduation. That being said, I submit that the ratio of homophobes to non-homophobes(hehe, persons who are indifferent to others sexual preferences)is very close. Close enough that it should be considered a non-issue. It may be extenuated in big cities because the number of gays naturally increase as population increases.
People naturally gravitate towards one group or another (gangs, religion, political..etc). In many cases we may belong to multiple groups. It's gives us a comfort zone. I don't see a problem with that as long as one group doesn't infringe on the civil rights of another.
Outside of monitory issues (health benefits for example) isn't the issue of gay marriage about them not belonging or being welcomed into to certain group/groups? Why would you want to belong to or be associated with a group that doesn't approve/share in your believes? Fuckem, get over it! What, you want the approval of our government (fuck them too), Christians, the Bloods or Crips? What?
11th June 2008 at 6:14 am | permalink |You want to get married? Get married, have ceremony! All the people who love and support you will come, get drunk and pass out on your lawn:)
Oops, that should be "monetary issues"
11th June 2008 at 6:35 am | permalink |One more thing. On the issue of "Now I'm sure someone will bring up the whole pile of horseshit about the US being a "Christian Nation", and something about protecting the Christian morality of American society … but the fact is, we're NOT a Christian nation, and never have been."
Please, WTF? Now I fully support a groups write to coin it's own phrase. You fizzle my minizzle(or whatever), but it has nothing to do with me personally. I'm mean really, so you don't fall into that finite definition, make up your own (everyone does)and stand behind. Coin a phrase (pot smokers morality) and make up your own definitions. Then you can judge everyone by your standards(if you choose).
Oh, and if you can grasp the fundamentals of morality (no adjective needed, see also moral)you will be ahead of %50 of the worlds population.
11th June 2008 at 8:04 am | permalink |Your basic point that if marriage is a purely religious concept, it has to come out of the law books altogether, and if it's not, well then we can't limit who gets married on religious grounds, is ingenious!
We need to amass a list of these sort of gambits and give them to the next scientist who has to debate a Christian leader on the news…
@Rick, you can't just ignore how society thinks of you. Being treated like part of the underclass your whole life is demoralizing. Imagine everyone treated you like a woman, called you her, and she all the time, no matter how much you claimed to be male. It'd get pretty annoying wouldn't it? Just because there are lots of bigots, doesn't make bigotry ok!
11th June 2008 at 10:18 am | permalink |I've been saying this same thing for about 20 years now. My idea to counter it, in brief:
1. The Government no longer does a marriage, They strictly do Civil Unions. Civil Unions are already recognized by law and have the same benefits as marriage, they are just religion neutral. This reinforces separation of church and state.
2. Declare marriage a legal variant of a Civil Union, to be performed by a non-government institution (like a religion). To get married, you need to fulfill all requirements of a Civil Union, and whatever else the institution doing the marriage requires.
At this point you have several benefits:
-Homosexuals can get civil unions, which by existing law have the same status as marriage.
-Marriage is recognized as a religious sacrament (which it is) and will only allow that which the religion allows.
Now you have the homosexual community happy, as they have CUs, and the religious community happy as same sex marriages will no longer threaten the "integrity" of marriage. Las Vegas now opens up a few new businesses (the dollar is mightier than the bigotry), and everyone walks away with what they said they want.
Of course, some of the religious people want to screw (pun intended) the homosexuals, so they will still fight this, just as some homosexuals want to piss off the religious nuts by having their union called marriage. We'll never make either of those groups happy, so I'll not waste effort trying.
Oh, also realize we've also nicely sidestepped all the states that have enacted "Sanctity of marriage" amendments to their constitutions. Those amendments don't say anything about Civil Unions, do they? :)
Next benefit, those who want Social Contracts (Civil Unions with set expiration dates, where the dissolution conditions are preset as well), which are now illegal in the US (marriage is until death do us part, unless you pay the extortion - er, fees of the legal system for a divorce).
11th June 2008 at 10:57 am | permalink |@Kavan- "you can't just ignore how society thinks of you. Being treated like part of the underclass your whole life is demoralizing"
I agree with you! You can't ignore how society thinks of you, nor should you. Being aware of any situation is half the battle. Granted it takes a special person to not let societies negative views get to you, but it's certainly not impossible. I think you'll find history is filled with people who have overcome a variety handicaps, stereotypes, racism..etc.
While it may not be natural, I think the effort it takes to develop think skin may be a huge asset.
Unfortunately, it will probably take less time to develop your own inner strength than it will to change the mind of a bigot.
Not to say (we/they/anyone)should stop fighting the battle against the aforementioned.
11th June 2008 at 11:20 am | permalink |Not sure I could have made the point better. :-)
The only questions I have for those who would oppose same-sex marriage are these:
What tangible harm does it do to YOU if SOMEONE ELSE marries an individual of the same sex?
Does the marriage of two persons of the same sex invalidate your own marriage?
Does the marriage of two persons of the same sex take money out of your pocket?
Does the marriage of two persons of the same sex increase your taxes?
Does the marriage of two persons of the same sex require you to do anything that would violate your conscience or religious belief?
On the other hand, there IS a very serious impact to "non-traditional" families and same-sex couples. Same-sex couples can have children, either through adoption, or as a result of their own procreative activities. Refusing to allow same-sex couples to enter into the same legal institution as millions of heterosexual couples forces the same-sex couples to either engage in additional contracts or other legal mechanisms to achieve the same thing that heterosexual couples can accomplish via a single stroke of a pen (signing the marriage license).
So, to ban same-sex marriage, one has to first articulate a reason why someone else must suffer the additional burden when no burden should be necessary to protect the "family."
11th June 2008 at 11:33 am | permalink |[...] I happen to agree with it… June 11, 2008 at 3:35 pm | In Miscellaneous | A post on the blog f*cking c*nts on gay marriage, homophobia, and what we (Americans) as a society can do about [...]
11th June 2008 at 11:37 am | trackback from Since I happen to agree with it… « Sage Freehaven’s Rant Hole@Rick: I have no problem whatsoever with people's right to associate with who they prefer to associate with. I have a problem when certain groups of people try to mandate how other groups of people may or may not associate with each other. Same-sex marriage supporters aren't trying to mandate that all Christians must have a "trial period" gay relationship before they're allowed to get married, but Christian groups (and other homophobic folks) feel perfectly justified in mandating that same-sex couples MUST NOT get married. Not fair.
@Kavan Wolfe: "Your basic point that if marriage is a purely religious concept, it has to come out of the law books altogether, and if it's not, well then we can't limit who gets married on religious grounds, is ingenious!" Thanks! :-) It seems like the most straightforward way to approach the issue, really. There is absolutely no reason for a debate on morality in the first place … it *should* be a purely legal, separation of church and state issue.
@Xaos Architect: Your idea and mine would be almost functionally identical, because there are churches out there who'd be happy to marry same-sex couples. The Unitarian Universalists support same-sex marriage as a church tenet, and a great many Universal Life Church officials (of which I am one) would be happy to do so as well. So, those same-sex couples who *wanted* to get a proper church "marriage" could, under your system, go ahead and do it, if they went to the right church.
But (@Larry)—to get back to one of Larry's points, closely related to this—any system where straight couples could get married, but gay couples could only get a civil union (as it currently works in the UK, and a few other European countries), while certainly better than nothing, is essentially a "separate but equal" system based on gender.
The US Supreme Court struck down "separate but equal" laws based on race back in 1954 with Brown v. Board of Education. So, once again, why should same sex relationship issues be legally different than race-mixing issues? Both issues are a matter of people wanting to associate in ways other "tribes" don't want them to …
@Larry: And to get back to another of your points: "To go back to root causes [of religious bigotry] would be folly since they are so mired in ancient history, unproveable pronouncements, and pure belief." I completely 100% disagree.
As I parenthetically stated in the article, religion is "one of the early and most militant promoters of what I think I'll call 'psychological tribalism'." People raised in racist families/communities simply believe other races are inferior. They don't question it … Mom and Dad said so, so it must be true. That's their tribal belief system. Religious folks? The church leader and/or holy book said that god said so, so it must be true.
The only significant difference I see is the identity of the authority figure handing down the belief system … and I find it much easier to understand someone believing whatever their parents tell them, than believing anything Pastor Bob and/or The Invisible Voodoo Daddy in the Sky (to borrow Becca's phrase) tells them.
Mom and Dad are right there, and can spank you and send you to bed without dinner right now … Pastor Bob and his imaginary friend can't physically do shit, except—and this plays back into the whole theme of the post—eject you from one of your social tribes. Banishment is a stiff punishment indeed, for a primitive tribesman. ;-)
@Becca: "Not sure I could have made the point better." High praise indeed. :-) Thank you!
11th June 2008 at 2:27 pm | permalink |The charge that marriage is a religious institution is one that I could understand from a predominantly Catholic nation (Italy, Spain) but seems very odd for a predominantly Protestant nation - to my understanding, many of the 'fathers' of Protestantism (Calvin, Luther) were proponents of marriage as a civil institution, where the ceremony was merely out-sourced to the church.
"Regardless of the religious preferences of the founding fathers" would I think be more correctly "Because of…". While most of them belonged to one church or another - and some were strongly religious -, many (even most) were either professedly deist, or 'Christian' only in name and would be judged atheist by modern standards.
11th June 2008 at 8:06 pm | permalink |@grimbles: While the US might be predominantly Protestant-originated factions of Christianity, the Southern Baptists and various fundamentalist and evangelical sects couldn't care less what Calvin or Luther had to say about anything.
And it is these folks who are raising the loudest fuss about preserving the "sanctity" of marriage … so I think it would just be easiest to let them do exactly that. The churches could control marriage in whatever way they saw fit, and everyone who wished to could choose a church that agrees with their views on the subject. If the traditionalist Protestants churches prefer to leave marriage as a civil affair, they could certainly decline to provide religious marriage services … but I doubt they would. heh
Also, I am aware of the 'not very Christian' religious leanings of the Founders of the US … however, I felt that whole subject was a complete diversion from the point I was trying to make, hence my use of "regardless". ;-)
11th June 2008 at 9:07 pm | permalink |@ grimbles: Interesting point you bring up about it being "because of …" the founders' religious beliefs.
One of the earliest and most vocal proponents for separating church and state was Roger Williams, a Baptist minister from Massachusetts who was driven from the colony because he didn't hew to the same branch of Protestantism as did the others of the Mass. Bay Colony. Williams headed east and founded Rhode Island. And then advocated a strict separation between the affairs of the state and the affairs of the church.
11th June 2008 at 9:54 pm | permalink |I pointed out the Calvin/Luther thing not because I expect the fundies to care, but rather because it's a point that should be raised regarding the 'It's how its always been' aspect of the sanctity of marriage argument. Though, that stemmed from a discussion I had elsewhere, so background may have been helpful, huh? >.>
Also, it may be that inter-denominational politics are very different in the US to Australia (where I'm hailing from), but Australian fundies really have the wind taken from their sails when you point out that sanctity of marriage is a decidedly *Catholic* idea (though, for the sake of pedantry, I should say Roman Catholic). Given that American fundies seem to squeal louder about more things than the locals, I'd expect them to pale at comparisons to Catholicism. Though perhaps homophobia is a great breaker-down of inter-faith barriers?
The 'regardless' thing, obviously a cross-pacific thing, as I read that as an 'in spite of' regardless. The fact that it didn't seem to fit with the general clueyness of the post should have been a dead giveaway though.
Veering away from that tangent, I think the biggest problem (aside from the general opposition to same sex civil unions) to the unions by government, marriage by church idea is exactly what you pointed out a bit further up: there would be churches that would marry same-sex couples, and I imagine the fundies are well aware of that. They'd push to stop gay civil unions, and when they lost that fight, they'd throw up a stink about which churches are 'allowed' to marry people.
I very much like the surrogate tribes idea. The division between the 'straight tribe' and the 'gay tribe' is mostly an artificial one - which, if I'm understanding seems to be pretty much your point. For all that homosexuality is derided as unnatural it is, as you've said, evident throughout history, in all manner of societies. It's evident in the animal world too. Extending this off into another tangent, one wonders whether the gay/straight tribe division is one that's been engineered by certain 2 millenia old institutions (and its global counterparts of other ideologies). Give a people something to fear (sodomy *gasp!*), offer them protection (salvation! yay!), and it is much easier to maintain control… But then, I'm just a teeny bit cynical.
Perhaps this goes along with all the other counter-advertising we need. Assure people they don't need the faster car, the bigger tv, the smaller phone, the shinier hair, the 'better' shoes/clothes/handbag/pet/house/friends/lover. And at the same time reassure that different isn't inherently bad. We're well past the point as a species where we need to concern ourselves with 'run from everything new, because everything new is liable to eat you.'
Thus concludes the meander through sexual, religious and commercial politics.
11th June 2008 at 10:23 pm | permalink |@ Becca
11th June 2008 at 10:31 pm | permalink |It's terribly refreshing to find a few more Americans who know more of their own history than I do. Sure, it puts me on a lesser footing when it comes to such discussion, but that's way less scary than people who neither know or *care* to know fundamental - and wholly important - basics of their own history. Names of the first colonies? Yay. That's not history, thats regurgitating a textbook (or wall chart). =p
I don't have much to add to what's already been said; however, I'd like to let you know that I adore you for using "hypothesis" rather than "theory".
12th June 2008 at 1:40 am | permalink |@grimbles: Interesting, the "regardless" thing … I always use it to mean "let's not give that any regard", more or less. heh
And yes, more background on the Calvin/Luther thing would have clued me in as to your intent. ;-) And I think it would be a wonderful idea for me to look up any quotable references I can find to that effect. Only problem being there are good odds that anyone I'd get the chance to use it against would either be a fundie who thought they understood god's intentions better than those old dead guys ever could, or someone who didn't have the faintest clue as to the history of their own religion …
I'll probably still use it though. Misunderstanding never stopped me before. hehe
@Eruvadhril: lol … thanks. :-)
12th June 2008 at 1:57 am | permalink |Stephanie Coontz wrote an interesting article a few years back addressing some of the "unnatural/sanctity of marriage" issues mentioned previously. I thought I would share as someone might find it interesting.
http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/12910.html
@grimbles "It's terribly refreshing to find a few more Americans who know more of their own history than I do. Sure, it puts me on a lesser footing when it comes to such discussion, but that's way less scary than people who neither know or *care* to know fundamental - and wholly important - basics of their own history."
Yes, it's a bit scary that many Americans don't know their history better. I include myself in that category. What I find even scarier is people who use history as a crutch. They spew out facts and quotes (heaven forbid any original thoughts) to support their argument and yet omit or dismiss any history that contradicts them.
History (in my opinion) can be a double edge sword. Yes it's good to know how/why certain things were derived if for no other reason than to learn from our mistakes. Many of our greatest ideas/achievements are a direct result of past failures. That doesn't mean it should define who and what we are as a society today. I'm sorry, but so much of history (not all) is irrelevant today. For better or worst we've evolved and with any luck (in my opinion) we will continue that trend.
Huge tangent here, sorry about:)
12th June 2008 at 4:02 am | permalink |Will you be my girlfriend for life? :-)
12th June 2008 at 6:09 am | permalink |Indeed, a lot of history is pretty much worthless beyond fascination for those interested in it. But history is not just 'stuff that happened', it's the ability to look at that stuff, critique it, and apply whatever's left over to your understanding of the world. Memorising the exact dates of 'key' moments in a nation's history: worthless. That's what calendars and wikipedia are for.
Knowing that 'under god' was added to the pledge of allegiance (am I supposed to capitalise that? >.>) in the 50's, that Jefferson, Washington, Franklin (etc) were close enough to atheists, that's worth knowing if only to limit the grasp of the christian right screaming their other 'truths' at you along with 'founded a christian nation.'
The events are limited in their usefulness. The critical thinking that comes with a proper understanding of history (not just spewing facts) is priceless.
Hey, look (way) over there, the original topic. =)
12th June 2008 at 6:20 am | permalink |@ grimbles & Rick: I think the more accurate (and succinct) way of stating your points is this:
In the study of history facts are meaningless. However, the study of facts, in the context of their times and as part of a continuum is priceless.
Thus, we have the "fact" of Roger Williams advocating a separation of church and state. So what? In the context of the fact that he was a Baptist minister in the original colonies prior to the founding of the country, founded one of the colonies, and exerted much influence on future generations that would undertake the founding of a nation on secular principles–that fact gains significant value.
History isn't just to answer "what?" "when?" or "where?" but also "why?"
12th June 2008 at 7:10 am | permalink |@grimbles: Don't worry, I'm sitting over here keeping the original topic company. Do carry on, we're enjoying the show! hehehe
And yes, the average "I dunno nuthin' but whut I learnt in publick skool" American is utterly fucked on any understanding of their own history. Which is one of the biggest reasons we've ended up where we are today, as a society.
So we add one more benefit to a contextual understanding of history: It greatly diminishes the chances of being led astray by some loud, brainwashed moron waving "god's will" in your face … hehe
12th June 2008 at 11:20 am | permalink |@alpha - 'And yes, the average "I dunno nuthin' but whut I learnt in publick skool" American is utterly fucked on any understanding of their own history. Which is one of the biggest reasons we've ended up where we are today, as a society."
I think that would be an interesting post. I would especially enjoy hearing your hypothesis on "Which is one of the biggest reasons we've ended up where we are today, as a society."
No, I'm not being sarcastic.
13th June 2008 at 5:16 am | permalink |@Rick: Oooh, sounds like another top 10 post … Top 10 things Americans would never think if they actually taught history in US schools … hmm. Title's a little long, will have to think on that … ;-)
13th June 2008 at 11:07 am | permalink |Yesterday the norwegian government passed a bill, telling that the homosexuals in this country have the same rights as the heterosexuals. meaning the same right to marriage, abdopting children, etc etc.. Isn't that a fucking blast?
13th June 2008 at 5:33 pm | permalink |Absolutely loved this post - well thought out and built on solid foundations.
(I had to look up LGBT - lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender/transsexual - as an acronym because I don't belong to that particular tribe)
And am absolutely astounded by the quality of the replies - Rick, Xaos Architect, Becca and grimbles all make fine points.
It all makes great sense except for one thing, by accepting the concepts of marriage or civel union you are immediately putting yourself in a defensive position by accepting that 'accepted religion' or 'the state' define allowed partnerships.
Surely it is any individual's prerogative to define their relationship in their own terms. The true test of that relationship being their ability to be true to that relationship despite societal pressures.
13th June 2008 at 5:58 pm | permalink |sorry been busy. I'll just address the last point. When the state gives benefits to a relationship type they automatically gain the right to define it for their purposes. That's only fair, same in a religious context. If you want to be married in a church then that church can say what they consider marriage. The state and religious versions should not really affect each other imho.
13th June 2008 at 6:30 pm | permalink |@bill: Wow, what a wild idea! Treating all humans as though they're human?
@Ian: "Surely it is any individual's prerogative to define their relationship …" Well, that's more or less what I had in mind when I suggested the legal benefits would be gained through a partnership contract. You could draft your own contract, not unlike writing your own wedding vows. But if you want specific legal rights associated with a relationship, I see no problem with requiring a legal agreement between the partners.
Personally, I'd be happy to see a partnership contract law that not only allowed the partners to draft their own agreement, but allowed the contract to be between any two or more consenting adults.
@Larry: I don't think the state and church version should have anything to do with each other either. Let each church decide whatever their individual requirements are for "marriage" … just like they already decide which portions of the bible to emphasize for moral "guidance" to their flock. ;-) If you want to join a club, you follow the club's rules.
The government, however, should not be an exclusive club of any sort … it should be there to serve the needs ofall its citizens.
13th June 2008 at 8:00 pm | permalink |@ Alpha: "The government, however, should not be an exclusive club of any sort … it should be there to serve the needs of all its citizens."
Correction: The government DOES exist to serve the needs of ALL of its citizens.
[Rant_Mode]
That's the whole premise of the social contract, in a nutshell. When social contract theorists (Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Hume, et. al) speak of the individual as opposed by the state, they are speaking of a generic everyone–a universal "everyone" that encompasses ANY individual regardless of the circumstances of their existence. The state exists for–and to serve–EVERY SINGLE ONE of those "everyone" individuals.
It is this utter failure of our time and society that has almost driven me mad. It is repugnant that our national discourse has gotten to a point where we will willingly and unknowingly discuss segments of our society as though there is a defined strata where civil rights are more applicable–where "some [people] are more equal than others."
That is the beauty of this grand experiment. That all people are created equal; each of us endowed (sans Creator) with inalienable rights; by our very existence, we are part and parcel to "We the People." My right to live my life unfettered by government meddling is no less important and no less supreme that the same right held by a God-fearing Bush loyalist from Texas. Through the voice of Atticus Finch, this is a country where, with regard to the law, the pauper is equal to the president, the atheist and freethinkers the equal of any minister.
But these Christian moralists who seem to know better than the rest of us, want to not just tell us how to live our lives, but to dictate the very terms of our existence. And these intrusions, while sometimes trivial, are always an imposition of their will over someone else's; of their dogma overlaid onto someone else's existence. To them, their religion, their God, and their biblical morality, I issue the most throaty and vitriolic "fuck you" than I can muster, and if necessary, hoist the black flag. I'm not turning one iota of my existence over to any religious nutjob's delusions of Invisible Voo-Doo-Daddy-ness and associated moral dictates. They're welcome to make their case, but they are not free to expect their religious mumbo-jumbo will remain safe from criticism.
[/Rant_Mode]
14th June 2008 at 8:33 am | permalink |Testify sister! Yeah!
*looks self-conscious*
Um, jolly good show, eh what?
The sad thing is those who want to do the moralising don't see any middle ground (though, this applies generally to far too many people worldwide). Either everyone acts like good little jesus freaks, or god smites us all. Never mind that god (supposedly) told the faithful to get the fuck out of Sodom and Gomorrah before s/he rained hellfire.
And this tale of Lot brings up the wonders of sexism. When looking for an excuse not the trash the joint, god looks for righteous people and finds only 'one'. But what that really means is Lot, and 'his' women. God sends angels to tell Lot to gtfo. The people of Sodom demand the angels for hanky panky and what does Lot say? "Fuck off, but here, have my daughters." Niiiice >=/
I think at this time it's necessary to hear a word from the guy that did the raining sulphur: Loki.
"The Walrus and the Carpenter" that's an indictment of organized religion. The walrus, with his girth and his good nature, he obviously represents either Buddha, or… or with his tusk, the Hindu elephant god, Lord Ganesha. That takes care of your Eastern religions. Now the carpenter, which is an obvious reference to Jesus Christ, who was raised a carpenter's son, he represents the Western religions. Now in the poem, what do they do… what do they do? They… They dupe all these oysters into following them and then proceed to shuck and devour the helpless creatures en masse. I don't know what that says to you, but to me it says that following these faiths based on mythological figures ensure the destruction of one's inner-being. Organized religion destroys who we are by inhibiting our actions… by inhibiting our decisions, out of… out of fear of some… some intangible parent figure who… who shakes a finger at us from thousands of years ago and says… and says, "Do it - Do it and I'll fuckin' spank you. "
"between any two or more consenting adults."
14th June 2008 at 9:38 am | permalink |Because the fundies will have less of a problem with that than gay marriage. Not only rights for them queers, but letting them be all bye-secshul and polygamous! Well, at least the non-mormon fundies will be pissed. Whichever president brings that in would win Utah for life >.>
As usual i agree with most of the things you say but I have one complaint against gay men.
14th June 2008 at 12:22 pm | permalink |Stop grabbing other men asses if you don't know if they're gay or not. I never had this problem but this happened with a friend of mine more than once. He almost got into a fight both times. He does look a little bit gay, but that's not the point. If I start grabbing girls asses I'l get into a lot of trouble, and rightfully so.
About the marriage thing:
14th June 2008 at 12:29 pm | permalink |I think thy should use another label ( like "civil union") for all legal matters, the same label would be used for both heterossexual and homossexual relationships. The marriage "label" would apply only to any religious ceremony the couple ( straight or gay) had.
It's just a small change, but sometimes they way we word the options matter a lot on how people view it.
I second the legal label of "civil union."
Sounds stupid, but names are one of the things that people are so pathetically sensitive about. Make it a legal issue alone, and the vast majority of the "sanctity of marriage" crowd will break off. Just take the title of "marriage" away.
And it is fucking pathetic, how people will actively choose willful ignorance and hatred toward ANY group for no other reason than "they're different." The sole useful, beautiful trait in our backwards-ass self-destructive race is that we have the capacity to overcome our own primal nature. Anyone who goes against that [i]and survives[/i] may as well be giving the finger to Darwin, evolution, and every thinking man and woman to have ever lived.
14th June 2008 at 1:01 pm | permalink |*grabs Bruno's ass*
Hehe, well even though I'm not a guy, I still shouldn't grab someone's ass. Everyone should learn to refrain from the ass-grabbing. It's an epidemic! We must start a rebellion. Ass-grabbing will be the down fall of us all!
Err….anyways! I gave a speech on homosexuality to my fellow students in my social 10 class a couple weeks ago. Having 90% of the people in that class being homophobes was quite entertaining. And you know what they said? "It's just unnatural and wrong". Haha. And one said they don't like it because it's different…but everyone is different. If I have blonde hair and you have brown, you're different. Does that make me not like you or does that make it wrong? Gah…I hate it. Canadian society can be stupid a lot of the times too.
I thought everyone was supposed to have equal human rights. I really hope our society can finally open its eyes. I'm not one who really thinks getting married has advantages, but if one couple can get married, and another can't, then we really should try our best to fix our fucked up ways.
Fuck! <–I just raped your ears….without protection. Lets hope you get ear pregnant and we receive an ear baby! :D
Yeah…I'm bored. lol. Awesome job, yet again. I'll keep hanging gay rights posters around the school for you!
14th June 2008 at 1:43 pm | permalink |@Becca: In theory, yes, the gov't exists to serve ALL of its citizens. In reality however, it should, but mostly does not. ;-)
Beyond that, I agree with everything else you said, as per usual. ;-)
@Bruno: On ass-grabbing, yeah … *nobody* should grab someone's ass, unless they actually know the person. That's just plain bad manners, from gay guys, straight guys, lesbians … although straight chicks generally have a pretty easy time getting away with it. ;-)
@Aimee: " Canadian society can be stupid a lot of the times too." … your story might fall more into the category of "teenagers can be stupid," which is an international phenomenon. ;-)
And if anyone's having any ear babies around here, it'd be you … lord knows you've read more swearing from me than I have from you. Then you'll be a teen mother. Oh! The shame!
Right on with the posters, btw. It's great to know there are teens out there who are totally willing to buck peer pressure and stand up for a good cause. :-)
14th June 2008 at 6:12 pm | permalink |@grimbles: The story of Lot always baffled the hell out of me. Yeah, he's the virtuous one God saves … and he's going to hand his daughters over to a mob of rapists? Yee haw! Gotta get me some o' that old time religion!
I'm not sure multiple partners would be easier to get passed through … unless you defined it as one man, multiple women. ;-) Otherwise, y'know, there might be some kind of morally reprehensible homo/bi/orgy-sexual depravity going on, legally and all! Oh, the horror!
14th June 2008 at 6:17 pm | permalink |Aww, no love for the Dogma quote? *sniff*
14th June 2008 at 6:57 pm | permalink |Sorry … it's been so long since I saw the movie, I didn't even recognize it. hehe. See, I gave you credit for it, and now I have to take it away. ;-)
14th June 2008 at 7:09 pm | permalink |Kind of related to one of the tangents here: sex and religion. I was pondering the topic, and a delightfully sacrelicious slogan came to mind:
Jesus, welcome in the bedroom (if he's into kinky shit). Otherwise, fuck of, and quit moralising.
I was thinking a bumper sticker with a bed on it, "JESUS welcome if he's into KINKY shit" and the moralising bit in smaller font at the bottom.
Not that you'd get your car smashed up or anything. Cos religious nuts would never do anything violent.
15th June 2008 at 7:02 am | permalink |@grimbles: Hmmm … yeah, that would probably fall into the category of "bumper stickers that make me laugh, but will never end up on my car." ;-)
15th June 2008 at 11:24 pm | permalink |"Then we can let any two willing adults enter into a civil partnership contract, if they want legal recognition for their relationship … and if you and your beloved "partner" feel the need to get recognition in the eyes of god and church, let that be a matter between you and the religious leader of your choice. End of story."
17th June 2008 at 10:51 pm | permalink |Has been working fine for Germany since 2001. I think the media went on about it for….let's say….3 days? After that nobody talked about it again.
Oh… and in Germany you actually have to get married twice: once in the town hall and if you wish to, another time in the church. It is NOT possible to combine these ceremonies so that you actually have a separation of law and church.
One more thing: I believe in God, in fact, I am a catholic. But I was "best man" at my best friends wedding to a guy. It is about your personal beliefs and your relationship to God. Just because the Lord's staff on earth has a loud voice, you don't need to listen to it if you don't chose to. For example I don't like the way the catholic church treats my gender (female) on a lot of topics, but I think the big picture is alright. Just make up your own mind. I am sure God won't mind, there are more different kind ofchurches in the US than in the entire rest of the world. Just start your own ("me, myself and I") you know, if you cannot find one that suits you. Don't blame the Lord for people that think that they speak out for him.
@Euro: Is that how it works in Germany? Fantastic! The sources I looked up online made it sound as though same-sex couples *couldn't* opt for the church wedding. Well, there you go … German society hasn't collapsed yet, and they've been doing that for 7 years now! ;-)
Oh, and I don't blame any underlying religious philosophy for the bizarre misinterpretations some of its followers come up with … but personally, I don't believe in god. If I did though, I wouldn't blame s/he/it for human stupidity either (although there is an argument for that: if god didn't want people to act like belligerent hateful idiots, s/he/it could have left out the belligerent asshole lobe of the brain during creation, eh? ;-)
18th June 2008 at 9:07 am | permalink |