Hey folks. I feel obligated to write, so I'm gonna write. My dear friend Eric showed me a couple of links to a couple of xangas that lambasted the idea of marriage among homosexuals. Having been absolutely silent on the point up till now, I figure I'll start talking--maybe save face for adolescents (that's right, it was bad enough that I'm considered saving face).
[BOMBASTICITY]
Now folks, I'm not religious at all. Many philosophers tend to divide people based on religion into three groups: theists, atheists, and agnostics; theists being the fellows that believe in a supreme being/power, atheists being the fellows that don't, and agnostics being the fellows that have no idea what the hell is going on and refuse to side with either team. I'm a member of that last school of thought; a holder of dubious spirituality, and certainly not a person that is qualified to express the general views of my own group, let alone the other two (since when were those views agreed upon, anyway?). However, as one with nearly eighteen years of experience under my belt and the ability to not sound like a complete jackass when such is my intent, I think that what I say is at least defensible.
In the days when Christianity was a much younger religion, the definition of sodomy was interpreted as any time other than when a heterosexual married couple engaged in intercourse with the man in the superior missionary position and the woman in the inferior. Now, it's quite clear that there are more ways for a man and a woman to have sex than just one, and this particular exercise would probably become monotonous after a while, but everything else was sin. Today, I doubt that you will find more than very very few who would claim that variety in sex is a bad thing. These days the Christian definition of sodomy has been narrowed to such things as beastiality, incest, homosexuality, and many other such things. We've certainly progressed, haven't we?
As Eric so brilliantly mentioned in a comment on one of the xangas, there are some other nice changes that have been made since the days when Christianity was just a baby--namely equal rights for women. No man today that wished to retain his testicles in whole pieces would ever question the equal rights of women to work or to go to school or to perform traditionally masculine tasks, and though there are of course still limitations (as with everything), you have to admit that the rights of females have come a long way in the US. Ever since we were aware of their existence, blacks were also treated as subservients, and Hispanics have also received their share of hate. Would anyone say these people have less right to basic civil rights than the average white male? Not anyone who matters.
Why am I talking about this stuff? One word: change. It is a fundamental part of human growth, as evidenced in the progression of civilization. I'm not advocating rapid change in order to foster quicker growth by saying this, but to deny that key changes in societies of the world have made for the development of the world we live in today is absolute folly. To some degree, political parties and affiliations on the political spectrum can be said to show how much change one is willing to tolerate or precipitate--often why Republicans and right-wingers are viewed as traditionalists and Democrats and left-wingers as explosive.
On the issue of gay marriage, America as a whole seems to be sitting somewhere towards the right, with a decent majority not in favor of allowing it. As a resident of Texas, I can safely say that the attitude towards that issue (and just about every other one) is significantly further to the right than average in this state. It is quite clear that the residents here would be extremely uncomfortable with gay marriage as would be the case in a great many other states, and if those states wish to make gay marriage illegal, that is their prerogative. However, there are also states and counties where the right for homosexuals to marry is supported by the majority. Now, as many of us know, President Bush has recently thrown his support behind a proposed amendment to the Constitution which almost certainly will not pass, but essentially defines marriage once and for all as a union between a man and a woman. Such an amendment would unnecessarily quash the rights of the majorities that live within certain states or counties; the only people affected, after all, (as many people have said already) are the two people being bound together in marriage and perhaps the people around whom they live.
Now I'd like to explore the only amendment that has been passed to restrict the social freedoms of a particular group. Yes, the 18th Amendment, which prohibited the sale, production or distribution of liquor. I wonder what happened to that one... that's right! It got repealed!
I'm not going to start saying that all of the lovely things that happened during the Era of No Drinking (hello, Mr. Capone) would happen as a result of the proposed amendment, but rather that it is foolish to let a social issue that has not caused rampant hysteria (except with assistance from the media) be the basis for even a proposition of an amendment to the Constitution. There are still counties and localities today that have prohibited alcohol consumption and that's all right for them. I don't particularly see why the same cannot be so with gay marriage.
...Damn, that took a LONG time to say. Sorry about that, folks.
[/BOMBASTICITY]
And now for my personal opinion:
I don't give a flying fuck. Let people do what they'll do. Just don't start making laws preventing it on a national level.
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, and good night.
And sorry I took so long.
[BOMBASTICITY]
Now folks, I'm not religious at all. Many philosophers tend to divide people based on religion into three groups: theists, atheists, and agnostics; theists being the fellows that believe in a supreme being/power, atheists being the fellows that don't, and agnostics being the fellows that have no idea what the hell is going on and refuse to side with either team. I'm a member of that last school of thought; a holder of dubious spirituality, and certainly not a person that is qualified to express the general views of my own group, let alone the other two (since when were those views agreed upon, anyway?). However, as one with nearly eighteen years of experience under my belt and the ability to not sound like a complete jackass when such is my intent, I think that what I say is at least defensible.
In the days when Christianity was a much younger religion, the definition of sodomy was interpreted as any time other than when a heterosexual married couple engaged in intercourse with the man in the superior missionary position and the woman in the inferior. Now, it's quite clear that there are more ways for a man and a woman to have sex than just one, and this particular exercise would probably become monotonous after a while, but everything else was sin. Today, I doubt that you will find more than very very few who would claim that variety in sex is a bad thing. These days the Christian definition of sodomy has been narrowed to such things as beastiality, incest, homosexuality, and many other such things. We've certainly progressed, haven't we?
As Eric so brilliantly mentioned in a comment on one of the xangas, there are some other nice changes that have been made since the days when Christianity was just a baby--namely equal rights for women. No man today that wished to retain his testicles in whole pieces would ever question the equal rights of women to work or to go to school or to perform traditionally masculine tasks, and though there are of course still limitations (as with everything), you have to admit that the rights of females have come a long way in the US. Ever since we were aware of their existence, blacks were also treated as subservients, and Hispanics have also received their share of hate. Would anyone say these people have less right to basic civil rights than the average white male? Not anyone who matters.
Why am I talking about this stuff? One word: change. It is a fundamental part of human growth, as evidenced in the progression of civilization. I'm not advocating rapid change in order to foster quicker growth by saying this, but to deny that key changes in societies of the world have made for the development of the world we live in today is absolute folly. To some degree, political parties and affiliations on the political spectrum can be said to show how much change one is willing to tolerate or precipitate--often why Republicans and right-wingers are viewed as traditionalists and Democrats and left-wingers as explosive.
On the issue of gay marriage, America as a whole seems to be sitting somewhere towards the right, with a decent majority not in favor of allowing it. As a resident of Texas, I can safely say that the attitude towards that issue (and just about every other one) is significantly further to the right than average in this state. It is quite clear that the residents here would be extremely uncomfortable with gay marriage as would be the case in a great many other states, and if those states wish to make gay marriage illegal, that is their prerogative. However, there are also states and counties where the right for homosexuals to marry is supported by the majority. Now, as many of us know, President Bush has recently thrown his support behind a proposed amendment to the Constitution which almost certainly will not pass, but essentially defines marriage once and for all as a union between a man and a woman. Such an amendment would unnecessarily quash the rights of the majorities that live within certain states or counties; the only people affected, after all, (as many people have said already) are the two people being bound together in marriage and perhaps the people around whom they live.
Now I'd like to explore the only amendment that has been passed to restrict the social freedoms of a particular group. Yes, the 18th Amendment, which prohibited the sale, production or distribution of liquor. I wonder what happened to that one... that's right! It got repealed!
I'm not going to start saying that all of the lovely things that happened during the Era of No Drinking (hello, Mr. Capone) would happen as a result of the proposed amendment, but rather that it is foolish to let a social issue that has not caused rampant hysteria (except with assistance from the media) be the basis for even a proposition of an amendment to the Constitution. There are still counties and localities today that have prohibited alcohol consumption and that's all right for them. I don't particularly see why the same cannot be so with gay marriage.
...Damn, that took a LONG time to say. Sorry about that, folks.
[/BOMBASTICITY]
And now for my personal opinion:
I don't give a flying fuck. Let people do what they'll do. Just don't start making laws preventing it on a national level.
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, and good night.
And sorry I took so long.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home