Don’t Try to Redefine Marriage
I was watching Anderson Cooper last night and they got to talking about Proposition 8 and he had on one fella for it and a woman who was against it. Unfortunately the video is not online so I don't remember either of their names or what exactly the conversation entailed, but I can tell you it is so weird for me to be so frustrated and annoyed by the prejudice on display by passing a law that takes rights away from people and not even be one of the people being discriminated against.
You don't have to be gay to realize Proposition 8 is horseshit. It is just one more way of segregating and calling someone different and telling them what they can't do as a result of that difference. Racism may be a larger issue simply due to the fact that it effects more people in any given example, but just because the majority of the people in the world aren't gay doesn't mean they don't have the right to get married. I mean, what a stupid thing to worry about.
The guy Cooper had on kept hammering home how allowing gay marriage is simply a problem because it "redefines the meaning of the word marriage as it is written in the Constitution". Ha, you mean to tell me these folks are fighting because Websters would be upset they would have to redefine marriage? What a stupid argument and an unforgiveable way of spinning the real reason, which is you hate gays. I wonder what we would be arguing if the Constitution didn't read like this:
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any State, nor State or Federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.
... but instead read like this ...
Marriage in the United States consists of the union of two consenting people. Neither this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any State, nor State or Federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.
My guess is people would be arguing wildly to try and have the wording changed. Dummies.
November 8th, 2008 - 14:02
Good points, Brad.
I watched the program too and can tell you: Tony Perkins was the douchebag against same-sex marriage, and the lovely Lisa Bloom gave the reasonable arguments for it.
November 8th, 2008 - 14:33
I don’t know who the woman was, but I can tell you that the bigot guy was Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council.
November 9th, 2008 - 07:30
It does seem so simple doesn’t it? Our world is changing, our society is changing and it’s not really that hard to change the existing definition- the people’s hearts and minds will follow. In any case, I think it’s absolutely despicable that the majority should vote on the rights of the minority. Don’t they see the inherent problem with that?
November 11th, 2008 - 23:50
of course my take is going to be slightly different
My take would be, why change? Why should society bend over backward and give one more concession to any group?
Civil unions afford all the legal protections that homosexuals have been fighting for, but they’re not going to be satisfied until they can claim the word marriage. There is already special statutes on the books providing for hate crimes against homosexuals, if I get beat up and called “a fat dirty straight boy”it’s simple assault, if the roles were reversed there is an added hate crime penalty.
My point being where does it end? next it will be special considerations for left-handed albinos, and let’s not forget six toed red headed only child’s.
When the majority of the people of the United States are not homosexual and they vote to enact state constitutional amendments protecting the word marriage, the people have spoken.
To call somebody a bigot or worse simply because they do not agree with you, is not advancing the discussion one iota. Because Tony Perkins not agreeing with the premise that the minority holds of the word marriage does not make him a bigot.
When this whole argument first arose it was because gay and lesbian couples weren’t afforded the same rights as married heterosexual couples. Those issues in practically every state have been addressed. Civil unions are just that, a way to protect the rights of homosexual couples. They won, they’re just not satisfied.
November 12th, 2008 - 00:16
and don’t get me wrong, I don’t really care either way. But you can’t legislate morality, you can’t force people to believe a certain way. You can’t just pass laws and create a utopian society. Human nature will always get in the way.
If the homosexual minority were smart, what they would do is “be normal” now what I mean by that is this, by protesting, holding Gay pride parades and mocking every religion, and by employing the attitude of getting in someone’s face and saying “I’m gay, I’m proud and you’ve got to accept me”if it were all just toned down and a big deal wasn’t made out of being gay, in 5 to 10 years the majority of the American people probably wouldn’t care.
But by keeping pressure and expounding open hatred for various religious organizations such as the Latter Day Saints, all they’re doing is heightening resentment between the homosexual and heterosexual communities. As long as people see angry gays and lesbians the more apt they are to say screw them.
It’s just human nature
November 12th, 2008 - 00:25
David, when you ask, “Why change?” and say making gay marriage would be another concession I only have to ask why it has to be looked at as a concession as muich as it should just be looked at as if gay people are the same as straight people, because they are. They are all just people.
The problem is the argument against gays is a religious one, whether people are willing to admit it or not, and the problem with that is that religion has nothing to do with law… at least it’s not supposed to.
As you say, “it’s human nature,” so let’s start acting as humans are supposed to act.
November 12th, 2008 - 08:56
Well Brad the religious right didnt define hate crimes, civil union and other discrimination prohibitions. You say ” just be looked at as if gay people are the same as straight people” cant be nor will it ever be that ship sailed years ago.
When you made them special you cant just un-ring the bell and say they are the same.
November 12th, 2008 - 10:15
I didn’t make them anything, that is just how I see the world and the fact that other people see gays as different from straight people is just sad. However, humans are nothing but animals so I guess I should never expect the majority of them to act any differently than a wildebeest in the wild.
November 12th, 2008 - 13:45
I didn’t mean you personally Brad, but I was talking about society as a whole. It’s rather disingenuous after granting someone special status and making exceptions, to then turn around and say they’re just like everybody else.
They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. This could be considered a case in point. But it’s just always been my point that the majority of American citizens who don’t enjoy the special status that gays and lesbians do, are not going to give up one more thing if it’s on the ballot measure.
The majority of the American citizens do not have the same protections as gays and lesbians. I know I sure don’t, I’ve been discriminated against more times than I can count. Because I’m a fat mixed-race smoker. You might laugh but you’re not going to get in the door at a lot of places. And what recourse do I have? None whatsoever.
There are certain realities that are just going to have to be faced and not tried to be covered up or legislated away. When you do that all you do is breed resentment. It would be nice if everybody held hand-in-hand and sang but it is just not going to happen.
No amount of wishful thinking or legislation is going to change it. Eventually we may evolve out of it, and another one of my points was as long as it’s being held out in the news media as an item of discussion and little children see the protests on TV and see the ugliness of it, the evolution will never start.
There will have to be generations where there will be no mention of it in order for popular thinking to evolve to a point where it’s no big deal. But as long as it is a hot topic item, is never going to.