16. December 2008 by admin.

With Proposition 8 succeeding in the polls and the majority imposing their will on the minority (not exactly the founding principle of this nation) it’s time to really look at the issue from a rational and considered viewpoint.  Or mine, in this case.

First, marriage is not a religious creation, it is a social convention that was created to define relationships between families.  While the modern view in the US relies heavily on religious overtones, it is not the only way to see it.  Consider that there are three forms of “marriage.”  The first is actually a legal and social form which is really the version that most same sex couples want.  It does not require religion in any form.  All we need is a couple of signatures on a piece of paper and the government recognizes that two individuals have entered into a relationship.  This is where those rights and responsibilities accrue that form the basis for the desire of same sex couples to marry.  We want those 1000 rights that we would have if we were allowed to marry.  The tax benefits, inheritance, medical decisions, parenting rights, and everything else.

Then comes the second form: religious marriage.  The problem for most people is that they ignore the civil elements of marriage and concentrate solely on the religious elements.  Well, you don’t have to be religious to marry.  In many countries, the only marriage that counts is the civil one.  Here in the US we have given way to the idea that a religious ceremony counts just like the civil one and, in fact, trumps it.  But marriage is not something that requires religion, otherwise it should be denied to athiests and agnostics and those who have left the church.  No, just like divorce is a civil action (frowned upon by many religions) the marriage that preceeded it should also be nothing more than a civil event.

The fact is that when the religious folks spout off about marriage being a sacrament and should be limited to one man and one woman, they are referring only to those ceremonies practiced under their religion.  In fact, there are a number of religions that DO recognize same sex marriage and even celebrate these ceremonies.  So, same sex marriage can even be religious in nature.  The problem is that those specific religions where it is not allowed are forcing their beliefs on the rest of society and not allowing for any other kind of marriage.

This is where I get to have fun with the Christian crowd because they are the ones pushing the one man-one woman marriage deal.  You see, marriage is not the June and Ward Cleaver relationship that many people think it “should” be.  It is something that was created centuries ago and has changed throughout history.  It is not this immutable sacrament that came down from God.  No, the Catholilc church co-opted marriage (as it has so many things) by making it a requirement for recognition of any relationship.  When the church’s power grew, marriage under the steeple became a requirement, not the option it used to be.

And let’s talk about marriage.  The bible has men marrying their sisters, polygamy was the norm and the woman was subjugated in the relationship.  Why did women change their last names when marrying their husbands?  To denote the change in ownership from their father to their husband.  Some faiths refuse to recognize marriage outside their sects and until just recently (in historical terms) mixed marriages were not allowed.  This furthers my contention that marriage is a social convention that just happens to have a religious element to it.  Remember dowries?  Those were bribes from those families unfortunate enough to have female children to the families of the fortunate ones with male children to try and get rid of the girl.  Is this the ideal of marriage those religious proponents are trying to “savor?”

They claim that same sex marriage “destroys” the institution.  No, infidelity, divorce, and abuse destroy the institution of marriage.  And you can’t tell me that the clergy don’t look the other way when important people want to get rid of a spouse.  The number of “annulments”  given out by the church don’t entirely coincide with the concept of one man-one woman forever.  I would suggest that because divorce is civil (you know what I mean) then marriage should be civil as well.  That would alleviate the fear that the clergy have of being “forced” to marry same sex couples in their churches.  Now why would we want to go into a place that doesn’t welcome us?  Especially on that day!??

So, there it is.  Take religion out of marriage and grant everyone the same civil rights under marriage.  Allow the religions to marry as they see fit (including those who allow same sex marriages) but don’t grant any civil rights as a result to ensure that everyone is treated equally.  And let me marry the man I want to spend the rest of my life with so we can be just as happy and miserable as every other heterosexual couple out there, as our relationship becomes.

Posted in Gay, Religion, Politics | No Comments »

11. April 2008 by admin.

It just gets better and better. Ms. Kern is not only a coward and a hypocrite, she is an out-and-out liar as well.

Apparently she met with the fine folks from PFLAG and during the course of their talks, Ms. Kern stated that she agreed with the idea that gay men and women should not be fired from their jobs because they are gay. (We are worse than terrorists but shouldn’t be fired because of it?) She said this twice in the conversation. But when she went back out into public, she denied ever saying anything of the kind! She claimed that PFLAG had “misrepresented” her comments.

In a delicious twist or irony, her perjury came to light quickly when PFLAG released the recordings of the conversation they had with her (and which was recorded with the consent of her staff!) where you can hear Ms. Kern say, in her own words, that she believes gays should not be fired from their jobs. Oy! So what we have here is not a failure to communicate but an appalling lack of brains from an individual who 1) cannot think for herself and therefore mimics words she hears in her church and 2) tailors her conversation to the audience even when it means she says two things that are complete opposites. So, does that make her a liar, or just a very good politician? Well, neither. A good politician wouldn’t be caught lying.

Posted in Gay, Freedom, Politics | No Comments »

21. March 2008 by admin.

Everyone should have heard of Sally Kern by now.  She’s that republican lawmaker from Oklahoma who was caught on tape comparing homosexuality to terrorism and saying that we are more of a threat to America than Al-Quaeda.  Uh huh.  Well, I was going to stay out of the fray considering that so many more eloquent people have spoken and written about this incident.  But then she goes and does something that gets to the very core of what I despise about people these days.

Ellen DeGeneres called her up to talk to her about her views and she refused to open the conversation.  Why?  She said she doesn’t want to walk into the lion’s den.  Um, hello?  Did you just say that you are afraid to defend your position?  Are you telling me that you made these statements but don’t believe in them enough to justify them to others?  You hypocritical coward!  This is exactly why I don’t believe politicians and people in general.  If you are not willing to defend your positions then shut up.  You don’t have the convictions of your beliefs then don’t tell me what they are!

I will challenge anyone in their beliefs because it is only by challenging our own beliefs that we strengthen them.  I mean, come on, if your belief system can’t handle a challenge then why do you believe in it?  Convenience?  Inertia?  I know that most people who believe in a religion came by it because someone “gave” it to them.  Very few people seek out religion by challenging themselves and the various options before coming to a decision.  They accept the religion handed to them by their parents, or find acceptance in a group that happens to be a church.  But then they don’t challenge themselves or their beliefs leaving themselve, I believe, weaker for the lack of effort.  It means we don’t have to think for ourselves, something mankind has been good at.

But the point is simple: if you don’t believe in what you say or feel strongly enough to be challenged for it, then stop spouting it in public and then running away when someone calls you on it.  Keep your weak beliefs to yourself and stop trying to force others to believe as you do.  It’s not a strong enough argument.

Posted in Gay, Freedom, Politics | No Comments »

9. October 2007 by Rob.

Ok, I have been quiet about him since he first came into the light (and out of the closet, sort of) but now he’s gone and made comments that just got to me. So I have to ask the first question that came to my mind when I heard him talking about having a “wide stance” in the bathroom. Um, Larry, weren’t you wearing pants when you were in the stall? And when you were wearing those pants in the stall, weren’t you doing your “business” (I heard you say that’s why you were in there) and if so, wouldn’t your pants have been somewhere down between your knees and ankles?

If you were, in fact, in the stall trying to “cleanse the colon,” how wide a stance could you possibly have had? I mean, you’re not that fat, so your pants should have been restricting the “travel” of your legs to a reasonable distance. So you either had your pants at your knees and looked like a strange travois with your feet splayed apart or you weren’t wearing your pants in which case I would have to assume that you really were not in the stall for digestive waste removal. I mean, really!

Posted in Gay, Freedom, Politics | 2 Comments »