h1

Explaining The Gay Marriage Thing

05.29.09

gay-marriage-7

Jacob Dickerman wants to know if someone out there can explain the gay marriage thing.

I’ll take a stab at it with one word:

RELIGION.

I suppose it gets a little deeper than that.  It also stems from a moral superiority complex that is derived from the blind following of certain judgemental religious doctrines.  It’s simply the current, hot button issue du jour that tries to rally the troops amongst the (mainly) evangelical Christians and Mormons.

What I really don’t get, though, is how even if they were able to successfully amend the federal constitution to ban same-sex marriages, what do they get out of it?  Would it really strengthen the religious community?  And, honestly, wouldn’t it empower them more to allow same-sex civil marriage so that way they could further separate themselves from the immoral secular society?

Ancient religious texts (and even then, only a certain few passages within those texts) combined with irrational fear of the unknown-slash-different and plain-old ignorance provides us with the anti-gay marriage movement.

I just still don’t get what they get out of it if they win.

Advertisements

6 comments

  1. Let’s see. One, the tenth ammendment precludes a federal decision affirming or denying national gay marriage rights. That decisions should be left to the people or states. Two, I’d vote against gay marriage because that’s one step closer to children being raised by same-sex couples, an unfortunate outcome. Three, it’s not the government’s job to sanction relationships–engagements, friendships and the such are legitimate relationships, but not officially recognized.
    The federal government has no business legalizing every relationship. It does however, have an interest in maintaining a traditional, nuclear family. The commonly-accepted definition of a family is necessary to strengthen our society’s fabric.
    Also, gay marriage rights are not equivocal to the black civil liberties movement. Gays can vote, ride in the front of the bus and own property. They can even live together in a legal civil union. Gays are fully enfranchised members of society, even allowed to marry members of the opposite sex. They have every right anyone else has.


    • Thank you, FormerlyST for proving my point and not bothering to actually answer my question: what do you get out of gays not having the right to marry? And please answer without all of the personal preference rationales that you used in your argument above. I’ll still respond to your arguments because they’re so easily refuted.

      1) I’m well aware of the 10th Amendment and states’ rights. As far as I can tell, I said nothing of the federal government stepping in at this juncture. More and more states in the union are legalizing same sex marriage via the legislature. Also, I’m not a lawyer so perhaps someone else can pipe in on this matter, but at some point, when more states allow gay marriage, the federal government will most likely step in because there will be a serious divide between two groups of states within the union and it will be in the country’s best interest to have it be uniform.

      2) The unfortunate outcome is only in terms of your personal bias against gay people. They are people. They can raise children just as well (or as badly) as any heterosexual couple, or single parent, for that matter. Their sexual preference has no bearing on child-rearing skills other than in your own discriminating mind. Find a scientific study that proves that gays and lesbians raising a child is detrimental to the child and maybe we can have an argument. Until then, you have no leg to stand on.

      3) I like that you’ve just decided for the government what relationships you think should be officially recognized. And that’s just a ridiculously dumb argument to relate friendships to marriages. Gay marriages are marriages, not friendships, just because the two people in the couple are of the same sex, as much as you would like to believe. The government recognizes heterosexual marriages, it should recognize same sex marriages.

      4) I really don’t know where it says in the Constitution that the government’s job is to maintain traditional, nuclear families. I’m sure it doesn’t, actually. While you’re at it, then, if that’s the case, then you should be fighting against single-parent households, children raised by grandparents, and emancipated minors. Probably should argue against adoption then, too. I’m sure you’re referring to the 1950s, turn-the-other-way traditional family as being the “commonly-accepted” family you speak of. There are in fact many, many types of families and they’re all legitimate. Who are you to decide that if you’re not a mother, father, boy, girl, and dog with a white picket fence that you are not part of a proper family construct? Not everyone has that luxury nor that opportunity nor that desire and they shouldn’t be punished or denied rights because of that.

      5) I didn’t bring up the correlation to the civil rights movements of the 1960s but since you did… I’m so glad gays can ride at the front of the bus. Good thing we’re just maintaining bigotry instead of regressing. Thanks for the enlightened observation. Don’t you realize that gays marrying people of the opposite sex in order to try to fit into this so-called “commonly-accepted family” is the reason for so many families disintegrating? So many lives being shattered? All in the name of your preferred nuclear family unit.

      Now that you’ve pretty much said everything I’ve ever already heard a million times in order to try to argue against same sex marriage, I’d really like it if you could answer MY question in my post instead. I’d love to hear that.


  2. SEPARATION OF RAUNCH AND STATE

    (It’s still legal – and always God-honoring – to air messages like the following. See Ezekiel 3:18-19. In light of government backing of raunchy behavior (such offenders were even executed in early America!), maybe the separation we really need is the “separation of raunch and state”!)

    In Luke 17 in the New Testament, Jesus said that one of the big “signs” that will happen shortly before His return to earth as Judge will be a repeat of the “days of Lot” (see Genesis 19 for details). So gays are actually helping to fulfill this same worldwide “sign” (and making the Bible even more believable!) and thus hurrying up the return of the Judge! They are accomplishing what many preachers haven’t accomplished! Gays couldn’t have accomplished this by just coming out of closets into bedrooms. Instead, they invented new architecture – you know, closets opening on to Main Streets where little kids would be able to watch naked men having sex with each other at festivals in places like San Francisco (where their underground saint – San Andreas – may soon get a big jolt out of what’s going on over his head!). Thanks, gays, for figuring out how to bring back our resurrected Saviour even quicker!

    [If you would care to learn about the depraved human “pigpen” that regularly occurs in Nancy Pelosi’s district in California, Google “Zombietime” and click on “Up Your Alley Fair” in the left column. And to think – horrors – that she is only two levels away from being President!]


    • I’m not sure “The Separation of Raunch and State” is quite what you’re looking for because you’re then implying that Church = Raunch. Or maybe you’re saying that Church and State are the same thing and that they’re both against raunch.

      And while I think you’re completely separated from reality, you still didn’t answer my question because unless you are voting in favor of same sex marriage (which I’m sure you are not), you’re not doing your part to bring Jesus back sooner so that can’t really be considered a benefit to you for banning gay marriage; quite the contrary, you should be in favor of same sex marriage.


  3. I don’t know what hurts worse: reading these ridiculous screeds by self-righteous, religious fundamentalists or the random corneal abrasion I suffered at 4AM.

    Mason, while “FormerlyST” was an easy one, Ricky on the other hand seems pretty straightforward. You’re right, he makes the perfect case why all christians should vote to approve same sex marriage. Anything they can do to hasten the arrival of their savior, correct?

    God, these people are infuriating.


    • Having sliced into my own cornea before as a child, I know the pain you’re going through, and still can’t determine which is more agonizing.

      The only problem is that Ricky provided the reasoning for why fundamentalist Christians should be in favor of gay marriage, not against it, which was the question that I originally posited. Ricky and the like are so backwards and clueless that they don’t realize that they’ve got it wrong, even in their own anciently apocalyptic view of the world. It’s like a new level of stupidity.



Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: