Time has an article on California's Proposition 8 that ya'll oughta read.
See, this is why I hate people. Proposition 8 is a fine example of what happens when you let the majority make decisions that affect minorities (Jim Crow, anyone?). Evidently, Californians can change their state constitution any time the wind blows, and I'd say they need to look at changing that, for exactly this reason.
The herd mind is dumb and fearful. You tell people that gay marriage is a threat, and they believe that horseshit. This is nothing new. Look back at the reaction to interracial marriage as little as 50 years ago, and you'll see the same hateful, ugly rhetoric and faulty, convoluted logic in those arguments. I mean word for word. Hate is a powerful force, much more so than tolerance. Because hate is primal. It's born in, and driven by fear. You don't look/act/think/believe like I do, so you must be against me. You might hurt me, take something away from me. Ridiculous? Yes. Childish? Yes. Narcissistic? Of course! Anytime you think that what other people choose to do with their lives is about you? What else would you call it?
Get a grip, folks. I assure you, my life has nothing to do with your Bible-thumping, lame-ass, pathetic existence. I'm no threat to you, so leave me and my gay brothers and sisters alone. All we want are the same basic human rights that you enjoy. It costs you nothing.
Showing posts with label gay rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gay rights. Show all posts
Friday, March 6, 2009
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
The Homosexual Agenda
Well, the conservatives have been worried for some time now about the "Homosexual Agenda". And while it has been fun watching them fret about what manner of nefarious, anti-family plots those hedonists have been brewing, I think it's time to set the record...erm...straight. Now, I may have missed some meetings, so if I skip anything, ya'll feel free to add it on.
Agenda Items:
The institution of a nationwide "Happy Hour", with half-price cocktails.
The right to adopt babies who will eventually grow into ungrateful, sullen teenagers and make us feel like we failed as parents.
Inclusion of tanning salons in insurance coverage.
The right to inherit our partner's crushing debt, so we have something to remember them by.
The addition of the letter H to the movie ratings system. Some movies are obviously for us, but others have a more subtle appeal that may not be entirely clear from reviews (G.I. Jane, anyone?)
The right to be badgered into marriage, so we can lose half our stuff in the divorce, because any excuse for shopping is a good excuse.
American Drag Idol.
That's about it. See? We're not really asking for that much, are we?
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Those Damn Queers Are Demanding "Rights" Again!
Recently, About.com featured the following column by Jack Kerwick: (italics are mine)
Proposition 8 and the events that have unfolded in the wake of its passage in California have reignited the controversy over so-called “gay marriage.” Partisans on both sides of this issue invariably characterize it as an issue over the “definition” of marriage: those on the Right want to continue “defining” marriage as a union between “a man and a woman”, while those on the Left seek to expand its definition to encompass unions between members of the same sex.
While the issue at stake here definitely involves “the definition” of marriage, to understand it only in these terms is to both misunderstand and grossly understate what is at stake. No arguement there.
The claim that this debate centers on a disagreement over a “definition” erroneously suggests that the proponents and opponents of “gay marriage” differ with one another merely in degree ; in fact, the conflict between them runs much deeper than the term “definition” would indicate. Yep, all the way down to the basic rights heterosexual Americans take for granted. Like the right to be protected from discrimination in housing and employment, the right of spousal inheritence, and all other societal privileges granted to heterosexual marriages.
Republicans and Democrats entertain (or at least claim to entertain) different “definitions” of government, yet insofar as the one Party champions “Big Government” while the other promotes “Small Government,” their disagreement appears to be one of degree. Couldn't resist that tired old "big government" dig, even now, could ya, Kerwick?
In contrast, the difference between the two conceptions of “marriage” in question is a difference in kind . Here we go, let the spin begin.
Reflection on the history of the institution of marriage makes it possible to abstract from the contingencies and relativities of time and place an ideal type, that is, a set of presuppositions underlying and, thus, surviving the fluctuations that actual marriage has undergone and in the absence of which it wouldn’t be the institution that it is. Good thing it's "fluctuated" away from that whole "women as property" beginning, huh? Oh wait...
Admittedly, these presuppositions are few in number, but they are unmistakable. Anyone else sense mistakes coming up?
Marriage is, first, an enduring, indeed, permanent union (Not even gonna bother looking up divorce rates here.); second, it is the permanent union between members of the opposite sex—an inherently heterosexual compact; finally, it is a union from which children can be and are expected to spring.
Those on the Right who oppose “gay marriage” by arguing that marriage is and always has been “the union of a man and a woman” are being less than fully honest. Wow, what a humbling admission!
It is much more accurate to say that marriage has always been a union between men and women .
“Polygamy” -- the union of one man and several women -- has been the historical norm. “Polyandry” -- the union of one woman and multiple men -- though much rarer, is not unheard of. Anthropological evidence suggests that history is not without cultures that sanctioned the marrying of sons and mothers! Holy marriage trivia, Batman! And, of course, marriage has been expressed through the form of monogamy.
The proponents of these various expressions of marriage often disagree fiercely and passionately with one another over the proper form of marriage. Still, their disagreement is one of degree. There is no disagreement that marriage is an inherently heterosexual union, the means by which the human race is replenished and civilized. I think it's nice they were all able to agree on that at least, don't you?
The proponents of so-called “gay-marriage” demand not merely a “re-definition” of marriage -- marriage has been continually redefined throughout its history -- they demand, rather, that two fundamentally distinct, irreducible kinds of association, the one “marital,” the other “non-marital,” be collapsed into one another. To paraphrase Aristotle, it was as if they insisted on describing the conclusions of mathematics in terms of “virtue” and “vice,” “justice” and “injustice,” and ethics in terms of “axioms” and “proofs.” I'll see your Aristotle and raise you Platos' Republic on the subject of marriage.
In short, the proponents of “gay marriage” claim a “right” (Those zany homosexuals and their wacky claims of "rights"!) to a contradiction in terms: “same-sex unions” simply cannot be marital. Bearing in mind that the argument in favor of “same-sex marriage” is not simply an argument in favor of but one more revision of the “definition” of marriage, but instead rests upon a fundamental confusion of categories, it is not difficult to recognize the comparison with earlier restrictions on inter-racial marriage that are often made for the spurious analogy that it is. Funny, it all looks like hate to me.
That parties to a marriage be of the same racial background is not a postulate of marriage. Or, to use the idiom of an earlier era, race is an “accidental” feature of marriage, while heterosexuality is “essential” to it. Because only heterosexuals can take vows and exchange rings?
Mormons have incurred the wrath of the supporters of “same sex marriage” for their endorsement of Proposition 8. In response to the outrageous manner in which members of the Church of Latter Day Saints (LDS) have been treated, it would be something like poetic justice if they would now assert their “right” to marry whomever and how many ever people they wanted to marry. While our society judges polygamy an undesirable marital arrangement, unlike homosexual “unions,” at least polygamy is a form of marriage. I kinda wish they'd take ya up on that, if only so I could watch ya'll try to fight this battle on two fronts.
Paraphrasing Aristotle, correcting fellow pundits on their semantics, and using tortured sentence structure do not make for a compelling arguement, Mr. Kerwick. There's a reason you have to work so hard to make your case against gay marriage. It's always difficult to defend an exclusive veiwpoint, because such a position requires one to dismiss all other opinions as foolish and without merit. If you'd step away from your irrational fear that we are trying to take something away from you for a moment, maybe you could see how damaging it is to society as a whole to marginalize an entire segment of the population on the basis of who (whom?) they love.
Proposition 8 and the events that have unfolded in the wake of its passage in California have reignited the controversy over so-called “gay marriage.” Partisans on both sides of this issue invariably characterize it as an issue over the “definition” of marriage: those on the Right want to continue “defining” marriage as a union between “a man and a woman”, while those on the Left seek to expand its definition to encompass unions between members of the same sex.
While the issue at stake here definitely involves “the definition” of marriage, to understand it only in these terms is to both misunderstand and grossly understate what is at stake. No arguement there.
The claim that this debate centers on a disagreement over a “definition” erroneously suggests that the proponents and opponents of “gay marriage” differ with one another merely in degree ; in fact, the conflict between them runs much deeper than the term “definition” would indicate. Yep, all the way down to the basic rights heterosexual Americans take for granted. Like the right to be protected from discrimination in housing and employment, the right of spousal inheritence, and all other societal privileges granted to heterosexual marriages.
Republicans and Democrats entertain (or at least claim to entertain) different “definitions” of government, yet insofar as the one Party champions “Big Government” while the other promotes “Small Government,” their disagreement appears to be one of degree. Couldn't resist that tired old "big government" dig, even now, could ya, Kerwick?
In contrast, the difference between the two conceptions of “marriage” in question is a difference in kind . Here we go, let the spin begin.
Reflection on the history of the institution of marriage makes it possible to abstract from the contingencies and relativities of time and place an ideal type, that is, a set of presuppositions underlying and, thus, surviving the fluctuations that actual marriage has undergone and in the absence of which it wouldn’t be the institution that it is. Good thing it's "fluctuated" away from that whole "women as property" beginning, huh? Oh wait...
Admittedly, these presuppositions are few in number, but they are unmistakable. Anyone else sense mistakes coming up?
Marriage is, first, an enduring, indeed, permanent union (Not even gonna bother looking up divorce rates here.); second, it is the permanent union between members of the opposite sex—an inherently heterosexual compact; finally, it is a union from which children can be and are expected to spring.
Those on the Right who oppose “gay marriage” by arguing that marriage is and always has been “the union of a man and a woman” are being less than fully honest. Wow, what a humbling admission!
It is much more accurate to say that marriage has always been a union between men and women .
“Polygamy” -- the union of one man and several women -- has been the historical norm. “Polyandry” -- the union of one woman and multiple men -- though much rarer, is not unheard of. Anthropological evidence suggests that history is not without cultures that sanctioned the marrying of sons and mothers! Holy marriage trivia, Batman! And, of course, marriage has been expressed through the form of monogamy.
The proponents of these various expressions of marriage often disagree fiercely and passionately with one another over the proper form of marriage. Still, their disagreement is one of degree. There is no disagreement that marriage is an inherently heterosexual union, the means by which the human race is replenished and civilized. I think it's nice they were all able to agree on that at least, don't you?
The proponents of so-called “gay-marriage” demand not merely a “re-definition” of marriage -- marriage has been continually redefined throughout its history -- they demand, rather, that two fundamentally distinct, irreducible kinds of association, the one “marital,” the other “non-marital,” be collapsed into one another. To paraphrase Aristotle, it was as if they insisted on describing the conclusions of mathematics in terms of “virtue” and “vice,” “justice” and “injustice,” and ethics in terms of “axioms” and “proofs.” I'll see your Aristotle and raise you Platos' Republic on the subject of marriage.
In short, the proponents of “gay marriage” claim a “right” (Those zany homosexuals and their wacky claims of "rights"!) to a contradiction in terms: “same-sex unions” simply cannot be marital. Bearing in mind that the argument in favor of “same-sex marriage” is not simply an argument in favor of but one more revision of the “definition” of marriage, but instead rests upon a fundamental confusion of categories, it is not difficult to recognize the comparison with earlier restrictions on inter-racial marriage that are often made for the spurious analogy that it is. Funny, it all looks like hate to me.
That parties to a marriage be of the same racial background is not a postulate of marriage. Or, to use the idiom of an earlier era, race is an “accidental” feature of marriage, while heterosexuality is “essential” to it. Because only heterosexuals can take vows and exchange rings?
Mormons have incurred the wrath of the supporters of “same sex marriage” for their endorsement of Proposition 8. In response to the outrageous manner in which members of the Church of Latter Day Saints (LDS) have been treated, it would be something like poetic justice if they would now assert their “right” to marry whomever and how many ever people they wanted to marry. While our society judges polygamy an undesirable marital arrangement, unlike homosexual “unions,” at least polygamy is a form of marriage. I kinda wish they'd take ya up on that, if only so I could watch ya'll try to fight this battle on two fronts.
Paraphrasing Aristotle, correcting fellow pundits on their semantics, and using tortured sentence structure do not make for a compelling arguement, Mr. Kerwick. There's a reason you have to work so hard to make your case against gay marriage. It's always difficult to defend an exclusive veiwpoint, because such a position requires one to dismiss all other opinions as foolish and without merit. If you'd step away from your irrational fear that we are trying to take something away from you for a moment, maybe you could see how damaging it is to society as a whole to marginalize an entire segment of the population on the basis of who (whom?) they love.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
