Homosexuals are people AND Americans? Wait, what?

Thank goodness the majority of Americans are happy that DOMA was defeated by the Supreme Court (now called SCOTUS by the too-cool-for-school crowd), but here I'd like to address the detractors and their arguments against allowing homosexuals to marry. I'll cover the most common ones I've heard, the first is drawn from a woman I just heard call into a talk radio station:
  • "What is marriage, now? This will open the door to all kinds of unions. Can you marry a child, now? Can you marry a sister? Can you marry a dog? Can you marry many wives or husbands? Where does it end?"
    • This argument boils down to "I'm so confused! The world doesn't make sense anymore!" I'm sure this was the general sentiment among conservatives when the Supreme Court allowed interracial marriage in 1967 -- but for the sake of clarity, let me break it down for those who make this argument: Marriage is still monogamy between humans who are no closer in relation than first-cousins (this is legal in some states) and of the age of consent (which varies from state-to-state). So, in simple terms, because words can be so confusing: Monogamy, humans, no closer related than cousins. Will this change as time goes on? Will polygamy come back into vogue? Doubtful, but remember it was all the rage for a very long time, but it proved to be little more than slavery for the kept stable of spouses -- which is why it's illegal and immoral, in spite of God being all for it for a very long time.
  • "It's against God's word."
    • See above for the ever-changing word of God. He pretty much goes along with whatever the true believer thinks -- no surprises there, being imaginary and all. So, invoking God's word in an argument is like invoking Hitler in an Internet forum: instant loss of argument based on hyperbole.
  • "It will open the door to Social Security scams."
    • Oh, right. Like all those lovely welfare babies? It's not like homosexuals can even hope to reach the heights of scamming the government for money in the way that heterosexuals have been doing for decades. So, weak argument -- even a little despicable.
  • "Marriage was created for procreation. Homosexuals can't have children, so how is this a valid marriage?" (I heard this one from the same woman who stated the first in this list.)
    • Interestingly, this was the central argument before the Supreme Court for upholding California's Proposition 8 and also interestingly, Judge Scalia (who dissented from the Court's decision in this) posited that based on that argument, childless couples -- either electing to or unable to have children -- are involved in an invalid and illegal marriage. I can't do much better than that, and since Scalia is the champion of hard-core, Bible-thumpers everywhere, I'll just let his argument stand. Oh, and there's this thing called "adoption."
So, now that strict observance of a man-woman marriage is illegal, as it should be, we're faced with a brave new world. We have to now recognize that homosexuality is not only inevitable, but natural. It happens. Homosexuals fall in love and would like to have the same marriage rights as heterosexuals, in other words, they want to be treated with equality in the eyes of the law. And for those of you who would prefer the term "civil union" to marriage, consider this as one more way to diminish them. They deserve the same word, marriage, and not scarlet letter of "civil union" to be thrust on them just so bigoted heteros are clear on where to direct their derision. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

OWS goes to the movies

Before I get going, look at this: http://goo.gl/Fo0WK We've all seen the mockery of the Tea Baggers with their goofy tea bags dangling from tricorn hats. We've seen the price rampant patriotism can have on one's ability to think clearly or somehow mix up Jesus with the American flag. There's been vague accusations of racism -- and somewhere deep in the ranks, there is -- but certainly not the majority. Not consciously, anyway. Enter the OWS crowd. Clearly, a left-wing movement. If not in direct opposition to the Tea Party, it probably wouldn't have gotten as much traction without the right-wingers thumping their Bibles and loading their guns at the last election cycle. Imagine an alternate universe, where the Tea Party abandoned 1776 as the time when rainbows and butterflies burst from the orifices and fountain pens of our Founding Fathers, but instead harkened back to an earlier time -- 1605, when Guy Fawkes decided to start amassing gun powder to blow up Par
Read more

Is God religious?

Just yesterday, I read one of the many posts on the Internet asking the useless and old question: Is God (or Jesus) a Republican or Democrat? Let's set aside that this is a nonsensical question, just for a moment. And by the way, I'm American, so the question will be addressed as such. Other countries certainly have different problems with religion in politics, but I'm not equipped to address the world's problems. We know that both sides of the aisle claim God connections. They all go to church, claim to read the Bible or have read or have gone to Bible study groups. The question I have is why this is necessary in America. It's a rhetorical question; the answer is clear. Humans are pack animals, that's how we survive. We hang around with people who have like-minded ideas, so we don't feel insecure. For instance, atheism probably will never catch on in the American political arena because most of the faithful feel slightly afraid of what an atheist really thi
Read more

One is the looniest number

What kind of mess do we make with monotheism? I ask that question because I don't think many people give it much thought. One god is easy, I suppose; you only have one name to remember, anyway. But he's lonely and there's that sticky subject of where one lone god came from. But aside from that, when we create a single god to hang our fears on, he ends up being a lunatic. He has to. We can't blame the lonely god for needing to be angry, loving, jealous, petty, expansive, omniscient, lacking foresight, piteous, and pitiable. He has no choice. We made him that way. Consider Yahweh. Job is regarded by scholars as the oldest book in the Bible... and what do we get in the book of Job? Some very interesting stuff, with hints of polytheism. God is the book, having a conversation with Satan; it's an amiable conversation between beings that are far beyond human understanding. Satan makes a friendly wager with God and they proceed to torture some wealthy, pious man to see if
Read more