Somebody's been drinking their Haterade.
Oct. 8th, 2003 12:10 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
thebratqueenOkay, as promised, here's a bit of a response to the Talking Points on Marriage. Unlike my letter to Dubya, I'm not going to bother sending this to the person who wrote the article. The organizations sponsoring this event are so out there that it's not even worth the attempt to get into it with them.
Instead I'm putting it here as a sort of general rebuttal. They want their talking points, fine I've got mine. Maybe it'll help somebody think of something to say when conversations like this crop up in real life. If nothing else its should prove to be an interesting referral link for them the next time they check their webstats. ;)
That being said :
What amazes me about this article and the Gay Marriage Questions is their absolute fanatical devotion to a word. Marriage is Marriage! Marriage is only one thing! Marriage is a sacred word, with a single definition and THAT'S IT!"
First and foremost guys, it's just a word. Calm down. Otherwise it's going to be a rough day for you to find out that most good salad dressings are a marriage of oil and vinegar. (Yet, somehow, God has yet to smite down my bottle of Good Seasonings. Funny, that.)
Religously speaking I get it. I grew up Catholic. I know that in some religions marriage is a Holy Sacrament. To people of those beliefs, it does mean a man and a woman becoming joined in the eyes of God in order to have children. Okay. We've got freedom of religion in this country. If you want to believe that you go nuts.
But your beliefs stop at my front door. You don't own me, you don't own my beliefs and you don't own my brain. If I choose to define marriage as the union of two men for the sole purpose of picking out draperies, that's my right as an American. If I choose to define marriage as the right to wear a green sweater (get me with the shout-outs) I can do that too.
In your church, it's a religion. Out here it's just a word.
Robert "Talking Points" Knight is real big on the word thing. He tells us "The term “marriage” refers specifically to the joining of two people of the opposite sex. When that is lost, “marriage” becomes meaningless. You can no more leave an entire sex out of marriage and call it “marriage” than you can leave chocolate out of a “chocolate brownie” recipe. It becomes something else."
To which I say: true. But you still have some form of dessert.
What's most important to you, Robert? I'll conceed your point here. Brownies are defined by that chocolate, otherwise we don't call them brownies. So what's defining marriage for you? Do you maybe want to rethink that answer because based on your example here the most important factor in a marriage, for you, is not love, devotion to one's spouse, the desire to form a sacred union to honor God's gift of love or anything else, it's what you've got in your pants. Marriage, to Robert, is apparently about cocks and cunts. Remove one and suddenly Rob's making cookies.
Gosh. That's an awful shame. See for me marriage is a little deeper than that. I'm a little more on the side of "God's love as it is represented through human beings" but hey - like I said, it's just a word. If Rob wants to define marriage as "The legal binding of a penis and a vagina with anything resembling love, devotion and the desire to create a blessed union coming in as way, WAY second to the genitalia thing." then that's his right. It's sad but it's his right. I wear my green sweaters, Rob checks out married couples for hoo-has. We all need our hobbies.
Speaking of hobbies, Rob goes on to indicate that perhaps he should not be your partner in $65,000 Pyramid because he seems to have some trouble understanding how words can relate to one another. He tells us:
Giving non-marital relationships the same status as marriage does not expand the definition of marriage; it destroys it. For example, if you declare that, because it has similar properties, wine should be labeled identically to grape juice, you have destroyed the definitions of both “wine” and “grape juice.” The consumer would not know what he is getting.
'cause see here's the thing again. We already do call these things by the same word. We call them liquids. Yet somehow society has managed to survive for thousands of years without anybody misunderstanding that there can be a general term for a group of things which then has specific terms underneath it. Nobody barges into a store and bitches out the manager because he or she dared to put both soda and beer in the "drinks" section. I didn't go to my refrigerator just now and stand there in confusion being unable to understand the difference between my water and milk for all that they both fell under the category "stuff that makes my thirst go away". We're okay. Trust me, anybody who's not okay with this needs to call Oliver Sacks far more than they need to get in touch with their congressman about marriage protection. There's more immediate problems at stake.
Not to BDSM this ex-equine into the ground, but the world can handle more than one kind of marriage. In point of fact it already does since a Catholic wedding doesn't look like a Jewish one doesn't look like an Islamic one. We've all got our little marriage related quirks. Some people wear white to the wedding, others enjoy two tuxedos. The word itself is still okay.
Which is possibly why Rob then goes on to Maude "What! About! The CHILDREN!" Flanders us:
Marriage is the union of the only type of couple capable of natural reproduction of the human race—a man and a woman. Children need both mothers and fathers, and marriage is society’s way of obtaining them.
Okay, first of all this is just stupid because believe you me, a lack of a wedding ring is not sufficient birth control and I don't care what your high school boyfriend tries to tell you otherwise. But to be fair Rob's buddy Peter "Gay Marriage Questions" Spriggs is there to catch the snap:
The mere biological conception and birth of children are not sufficient to ensure the reproduction of a healthy and successful society [....] Maggie Gallagher puts it more simply, saying that “children need mothers and fathers” and “marriage is the most practical way to get them for children.”
To which I say: Okay, guess we better round up all those widows and widowers who are raising children on their own and force them to marry somebody.
Again we're back to brownies. What's your chocolate, Peter? Is it the cocks and cunts or is it what the owners of said cocks and cunts are doing? A cock and a cunt can just as easily be attached to a drug addict and a spouse abuser as it can to a loving parent. So what's the point you're trying to make here? Is it that damn important to you to get the throbbing manhoods and honeypots marching two by two? And if so, why? Because if you think the welfare of a child is that closely tied in to the shape of his or her parents' genitalia, we may want to get some remedial Dr Spock going here for you.
Then we get to the idea of discrimination. Back to Rob:
Marriage laws are not discriminatory. Marriage is open to all adults, subject to age and blood relation limitations. As with any acquired status, the applicant must meet minimal requirements, which in terms of marriage, means finding an opposite-sex spouse. Same-sex partners do not qualify. To put it another way, clerks will not issue dog licenses to cats, and it is not out of “bigotry” toward cats.
Okay, first off Rob there's a reason why dogs require licenses and cats don't. So maybe you want to think carefully before comparing the Sacred State of Matrimony to a way to keep rabies under control. Just a little tip from me to you.
Second of all, we're back to your damn brownies. It's just a word, Rob. We're allowed to change the meanings of words whenever we want. You might have noticed that because we're not forcing your ass on horseback and shoving you off to the Holy Land to lead a Crusade or twelve. You're not allowed to keep people from marrying just because you and your buddies decided that marriage means "Dick/Vagina and we called no backsies!" What are you? Eight? And regardless, why do you get more of a vote in this matter than I do? Or, because I'm sure my gay self doesn't get a vote in your world, all the straight people who also think that I'm a human being? I noticed you were big on the "freedom of conscience of millions of Christians, Jews, Muslims and other people who believe marriage is the union of the two sexes." which is remarkably generous of you, but what about all the people who disagree with them? And before you reply "But we're in the majority" remember that even if that was true, majority doesn't always rule in this country. That's why your president got elected.
Now let's move on to some of the issues. I'm quoting Rob but Pete basically says the same thing:
Homosexual activists say they need legal status so they can visit their partners in hospitals, etc. But hospitals leave visitation up to the patient except in very rare instances. This “issue” is a smokescreen to cover the fact that, using legal instruments such as power of attorney, drafting a will, etc., homosexuals can share property, designate heirs, dictate hospital visitors and give authority for medical decisions. What they should not obtain is identical recognition and support for a relationship that is not equally essential to society’s survival.
Okay first of all pick an argument and stick with it. Because if I actually have all the rights and priveledges that a married couple does what the flaming Hell are you bitching about? Let me pay my fees and get the same piece of paper you do. Then let's also note that if I have all the rights and priveledges apparently society is still here. So again - what's your problem?
On that topic: Guys? I have sex with women. You know what that involves? Having sex with women. It doesn't cause cancer, it doesn't spontaneously turn your marriage into divorce, it didn't actually cause the war in Iraq, much though I claimed credit for it, and it's got nothing to do with global warming.
The relationships are here, whether you like them or not. Stamping your feet and waving the flag of your wine and grape juice is not going to change anything. We're gay. We're gay without your approval. We'll continue to be gay no matter what you think of it. You didn't ask me if you could be straight - and by the way I actually do have a problem with a hate monger like you raising children - and I don't need to play mother may I with you in order to slap a rainbow sticker on my car.
The ONLY thing your disapproval does is hurt us. When you start weeks like this and create laws to keep us from having the same right you do to tell people that we love someone you HURT us. You hurt us, and we didn't do a damned thing to you.
Why?
Seriously, why? Do you actually think this is what God wants? That this is what CHRIST wanted? Christ, guys. He hung out with lepers. Think for a second before you give me your answer here.
Not to get in with the low blows or anything but if your marriage is so fragile that you have to defend it by focusing your energy on hating other people, maybe queers are not your biggest problem right now. It's time to self-actualize. I don't make brownies by going to my neighbor's apartment and bitching at her about the way she makes lasagna. I stay in my own damn kitchen and deal with the ingredients and the process myself. If you want to defend your marriage then defend YOUR marriage. Stay out of my bedroom and stop trying to enact laws that put rules on my heart. You're not God, you don't get a say.
And by the way, if marriage was THAT damn important to God's society, I think He might have mentioned it when giving us a handy-dandy Top Ten Ways To Stay Out Of Hell. Funny how absolutely nothing about getting married managed to make the cut. Guess He must have forgotten, huh?
Instead I'm putting it here as a sort of general rebuttal. They want their talking points, fine I've got mine. Maybe it'll help somebody think of something to say when conversations like this crop up in real life. If nothing else its should prove to be an interesting referral link for them the next time they check their webstats. ;)
That being said :
What amazes me about this article and the Gay Marriage Questions is their absolute fanatical devotion to a word. Marriage is Marriage! Marriage is only one thing! Marriage is a sacred word, with a single definition and THAT'S IT!"
First and foremost guys, it's just a word. Calm down. Otherwise it's going to be a rough day for you to find out that most good salad dressings are a marriage of oil and vinegar. (Yet, somehow, God has yet to smite down my bottle of Good Seasonings. Funny, that.)
Religously speaking I get it. I grew up Catholic. I know that in some religions marriage is a Holy Sacrament. To people of those beliefs, it does mean a man and a woman becoming joined in the eyes of God in order to have children. Okay. We've got freedom of religion in this country. If you want to believe that you go nuts.
But your beliefs stop at my front door. You don't own me, you don't own my beliefs and you don't own my brain. If I choose to define marriage as the union of two men for the sole purpose of picking out draperies, that's my right as an American. If I choose to define marriage as the right to wear a green sweater (get me with the shout-outs) I can do that too.
In your church, it's a religion. Out here it's just a word.
Robert "Talking Points" Knight is real big on the word thing. He tells us "The term “marriage” refers specifically to the joining of two people of the opposite sex. When that is lost, “marriage” becomes meaningless. You can no more leave an entire sex out of marriage and call it “marriage” than you can leave chocolate out of a “chocolate brownie” recipe. It becomes something else."
To which I say: true. But you still have some form of dessert.
What's most important to you, Robert? I'll conceed your point here. Brownies are defined by that chocolate, otherwise we don't call them brownies. So what's defining marriage for you? Do you maybe want to rethink that answer because based on your example here the most important factor in a marriage, for you, is not love, devotion to one's spouse, the desire to form a sacred union to honor God's gift of love or anything else, it's what you've got in your pants. Marriage, to Robert, is apparently about cocks and cunts. Remove one and suddenly Rob's making cookies.
Gosh. That's an awful shame. See for me marriage is a little deeper than that. I'm a little more on the side of "God's love as it is represented through human beings" but hey - like I said, it's just a word. If Rob wants to define marriage as "The legal binding of a penis and a vagina with anything resembling love, devotion and the desire to create a blessed union coming in as way, WAY second to the genitalia thing." then that's his right. It's sad but it's his right. I wear my green sweaters, Rob checks out married couples for hoo-has. We all need our hobbies.
Speaking of hobbies, Rob goes on to indicate that perhaps he should not be your partner in $65,000 Pyramid because he seems to have some trouble understanding how words can relate to one another. He tells us:
Giving non-marital relationships the same status as marriage does not expand the definition of marriage; it destroys it. For example, if you declare that, because it has similar properties, wine should be labeled identically to grape juice, you have destroyed the definitions of both “wine” and “grape juice.” The consumer would not know what he is getting.
'cause see here's the thing again. We already do call these things by the same word. We call them liquids. Yet somehow society has managed to survive for thousands of years without anybody misunderstanding that there can be a general term for a group of things which then has specific terms underneath it. Nobody barges into a store and bitches out the manager because he or she dared to put both soda and beer in the "drinks" section. I didn't go to my refrigerator just now and stand there in confusion being unable to understand the difference between my water and milk for all that they both fell under the category "stuff that makes my thirst go away". We're okay. Trust me, anybody who's not okay with this needs to call Oliver Sacks far more than they need to get in touch with their congressman about marriage protection. There's more immediate problems at stake.
Not to BDSM this ex-equine into the ground, but the world can handle more than one kind of marriage. In point of fact it already does since a Catholic wedding doesn't look like a Jewish one doesn't look like an Islamic one. We've all got our little marriage related quirks. Some people wear white to the wedding, others enjoy two tuxedos. The word itself is still okay.
Which is possibly why Rob then goes on to Maude "What! About! The CHILDREN!" Flanders us:
Marriage is the union of the only type of couple capable of natural reproduction of the human race—a man and a woman. Children need both mothers and fathers, and marriage is society’s way of obtaining them.
Okay, first of all this is just stupid because believe you me, a lack of a wedding ring is not sufficient birth control and I don't care what your high school boyfriend tries to tell you otherwise. But to be fair Rob's buddy Peter "Gay Marriage Questions" Spriggs is there to catch the snap:
The mere biological conception and birth of children are not sufficient to ensure the reproduction of a healthy and successful society [....] Maggie Gallagher puts it more simply, saying that “children need mothers and fathers” and “marriage is the most practical way to get them for children.”
To which I say: Okay, guess we better round up all those widows and widowers who are raising children on their own and force them to marry somebody.
Again we're back to brownies. What's your chocolate, Peter? Is it the cocks and cunts or is it what the owners of said cocks and cunts are doing? A cock and a cunt can just as easily be attached to a drug addict and a spouse abuser as it can to a loving parent. So what's the point you're trying to make here? Is it that damn important to you to get the throbbing manhoods and honeypots marching two by two? And if so, why? Because if you think the welfare of a child is that closely tied in to the shape of his or her parents' genitalia, we may want to get some remedial Dr Spock going here for you.
Then we get to the idea of discrimination. Back to Rob:
Marriage laws are not discriminatory. Marriage is open to all adults, subject to age and blood relation limitations. As with any acquired status, the applicant must meet minimal requirements, which in terms of marriage, means finding an opposite-sex spouse. Same-sex partners do not qualify. To put it another way, clerks will not issue dog licenses to cats, and it is not out of “bigotry” toward cats.
Okay, first off Rob there's a reason why dogs require licenses and cats don't. So maybe you want to think carefully before comparing the Sacred State of Matrimony to a way to keep rabies under control. Just a little tip from me to you.
Second of all, we're back to your damn brownies. It's just a word, Rob. We're allowed to change the meanings of words whenever we want. You might have noticed that because we're not forcing your ass on horseback and shoving you off to the Holy Land to lead a Crusade or twelve. You're not allowed to keep people from marrying just because you and your buddies decided that marriage means "Dick/Vagina and we called no backsies!" What are you? Eight? And regardless, why do you get more of a vote in this matter than I do? Or, because I'm sure my gay self doesn't get a vote in your world, all the straight people who also think that I'm a human being? I noticed you were big on the "freedom of conscience of millions of Christians, Jews, Muslims and other people who believe marriage is the union of the two sexes." which is remarkably generous of you, but what about all the people who disagree with them? And before you reply "But we're in the majority" remember that even if that was true, majority doesn't always rule in this country. That's why your president got elected.
Now let's move on to some of the issues. I'm quoting Rob but Pete basically says the same thing:
Homosexual activists say they need legal status so they can visit their partners in hospitals, etc. But hospitals leave visitation up to the patient except in very rare instances. This “issue” is a smokescreen to cover the fact that, using legal instruments such as power of attorney, drafting a will, etc., homosexuals can share property, designate heirs, dictate hospital visitors and give authority for medical decisions. What they should not obtain is identical recognition and support for a relationship that is not equally essential to society’s survival.
Okay first of all pick an argument and stick with it. Because if I actually have all the rights and priveledges that a married couple does what the flaming Hell are you bitching about? Let me pay my fees and get the same piece of paper you do. Then let's also note that if I have all the rights and priveledges apparently society is still here. So again - what's your problem?
On that topic: Guys? I have sex with women. You know what that involves? Having sex with women. It doesn't cause cancer, it doesn't spontaneously turn your marriage into divorce, it didn't actually cause the war in Iraq, much though I claimed credit for it, and it's got nothing to do with global warming.
The relationships are here, whether you like them or not. Stamping your feet and waving the flag of your wine and grape juice is not going to change anything. We're gay. We're gay without your approval. We'll continue to be gay no matter what you think of it. You didn't ask me if you could be straight - and by the way I actually do have a problem with a hate monger like you raising children - and I don't need to play mother may I with you in order to slap a rainbow sticker on my car.
The ONLY thing your disapproval does is hurt us. When you start weeks like this and create laws to keep us from having the same right you do to tell people that we love someone you HURT us. You hurt us, and we didn't do a damned thing to you.
Why?
Seriously, why? Do you actually think this is what God wants? That this is what CHRIST wanted? Christ, guys. He hung out with lepers. Think for a second before you give me your answer here.
Not to get in with the low blows or anything but if your marriage is so fragile that you have to defend it by focusing your energy on hating other people, maybe queers are not your biggest problem right now. It's time to self-actualize. I don't make brownies by going to my neighbor's apartment and bitching at her about the way she makes lasagna. I stay in my own damn kitchen and deal with the ingredients and the process myself. If you want to defend your marriage then defend YOUR marriage. Stay out of my bedroom and stop trying to enact laws that put rules on my heart. You're not God, you don't get a say.
And by the way, if marriage was THAT damn important to God's society, I think He might have mentioned it when giving us a handy-dandy Top Ten Ways To Stay Out Of Hell. Funny how absolutely nothing about getting married managed to make the cut. Guess He must have forgotten, huh?
