This is directed squarely at those of you who try to squirm out from underneath accepting responsibility and taking blame for your bigoted, hatefilled viewpoints, by absolving yourself of responsibility with claims that its not your fault that you can't support it, because its "God" who decided that it was immoral. It also is aimed squarely at those of you bigoted fools who try to claim "Next thing you know, people are gonna wanna be marrying their grandparents, their dogs, and having marriages that involve 3 or more people!"
Do you not see the absurd, childishness that has pervaded your thinking in order to prop up your religion's bigoted viewpoint, when you try to make a non-farcical argument in favor of forcing the rest of us to abide by it? With inane and totally crackpot logic about marrying grandmothers, and asking totally irrelevant false-flag questions that have nothing to do with the issue, such as querying: "Where in the constitution does it say that we have to redefine marriage to mean....., etc etc,"...You only make yourself look wholly idiotic and petty.
You people ought to be ashamed of yourselves. If anybody on our side of the political debate tried to make an argument with such a sad and pathetic foundation, you'd rightfully laugh us right out of the nearest exit door. But when it comes to trying to use logic to support illogical arguments, your ability to be typically hypocritical seems to know no boundaries whatsoever.
Precisely, what, is actually being "Redefined" here, when you claim that marriage will need to be redefined when it is allowed to encompass anything outside of two opposite sex people...?
Did they need to redefine Golf so that it was a "Game played by people of all colors and genders" in order to start letting black people, and then women, join Augusta National?
Did they need to redefine what a bathroom was to encompass a restroom "shared by both blacks and whites" once they got rid of the "Separate But Equal" facilities around until the Civil Rights Act?
Did they need to redefine VOTING as a "right to cast a ballot upon which a choice for elected official is made, and which can be dutifully performed by a member of any gender?" when the womens suffrage movement succeeded?
Did they need to redefine marriage the last time before blacks could marry whites, as an institution in which two consenting adults of *any color* may, as an act of love and commitment, conjoin their lives .... Yada yada yada..."?
(Bonus question: Did all your predecessors decide that rabid, obnoxious arguments about religion and other similarly absurd points had to be made to try to stop it back then, and do you still have the signs they picketed with in your attic, ready to dust off again, as needed?)
The answer to all these questions, as you well know, is no, they did not.---- (Except maybe the bonus question. I can't answer regarding WHAT might be in your attic. Nor do I Want to know.)
What they had to do in each of these cases was STOP acting in a legally discriminatory way and expand rights that had previously actually only been rights for the privileged majority, that were restricted to only those who were seen/decided as *privileged*, because those who were privileged had enough clout, and support, and they chose to legally enforce their own religious bigotry on the rest of us.
Your problem, and the problem of the entire religious establishment...Even those of you who pretend that its not a religious push that is causing you to make your bigoted case, (but everybody knows that its the ONLY reason for you to have to concerned) is as follows: Marriage has ALWAYS been an institution that, in its purest and most appropriate form, involved the conjoining of two consenting adults, ostensibly because of love, under a legal contract that conferred certain rights to a sharing of their existence together.
Just because, thanks to religion, for 5000 years a marriage could only happen between two heterosexual members of the opposite sex does not mean that this actually DEFINES religion. Rather, Marriage itself is a neutral concept, and RELIGION CHOSE RECENTLY TO DEFINE IT AS TWO OPPOSITE SEX MEMBERS WHEN IT GREW APPARENT THAT "Those damned gays have acquired enough respectability and joined the mainstream world with enough clout that, heavens to Betsy, one of them might very well choose to try and GET MARRIED if we don't do something about this! However, in getting with the times, its soon to be FORCED (which I find very sad and very pathetic) to recognize that marriage has for a very long time now, been not just a religious concept but a legal one...And its quite a neutral concept under contemporary law; As such, the existing institution need not be redefined whatsoever. We simply need to ensure that its *scope* improved in such a way that no longer can it/will it be used as a means of legally enforcing religiously encouraged/condoned bigotry.
Just like all the above examples did not involve redefining anything, they will neither have to redefine marriage. They will simply have forcibly make the church acknowledge that, though they don't like it, and though they may be filled with people who push an agenda of restricting human rights for certain groups who they identify as made up of "lesser" people, and try to absolve any blame for doing so by putting it on God's shoulders and saying "look, its not like I have any issue with gays. But the big man over there said its immoral, and so I have no choice! Sorry!" Shame on you all for trying to blame an entity who, even if he existed, certainly wouldn't have created homosexuals without the choice to "undo" their homosexuality if it were something that would condemn them. Just like you have the right to be stupid, ignorant, bigots, I will support and even fight for your right to be and think like an ignorant, uneducated, dark ages hatemonger, because I recognize that whatever inane, pathetic credos you choose to live by are none of my business, I expect you to recognize in return, that you won't be attempting to force your inane pathetic credo down our throats through legal channels. IT IS THIS FALLACY IN YOUR PUSH TO FORCE RELIGIOUS CONCEPTS DOWN OUR THROATS THAT IS THE ONLY REAL PROBLEM HERE. YOU FAIL TO GRASP THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOUR PERSONAL BELIEFS (AS WRONG AS THEY MAY BE), AND EVERYBODY'S LEGAL STANDING AND HUMAN RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.
I will close with this important thought:
Just because your church doesn't WANT marriage to include same sex couples, does not mean that marriage, by definition, doesn't already do so. The problem is simply that our laws haven't acknowledged that marriage has ALWAYS encompassed this definition, and the hateful fundamentalists are fighting to keep it this way.
P.S.-- addressing my initial paragraph, regarding people who use the argument that "Next people will want to marry relatives, pets, and 3 of more people...etc...:
To any one of those, I say fine. If that's what you wanna do, feel free to bring the absolute misery upon yourself that would inherently encompass doing any of those things.... Though since a dog can't technically consent, nor comprehend what is happening, I feel like, maybe the beastiality aspect you like to argue your viewpoint with should just remain the type of Church Marriage that is holy in your eyes, and God's but cannot be legally recognized. As for anything involving consenting adults, if you want to marry half a dozen people and legally confer to them all the rights of a spouse, who am I to stop you? You'd be making your bed, and I don't mind forcing you to lie in it.
Do you not see the absurd, childishness that has pervaded your thinking in order to prop up your religion's bigoted viewpoint, when you try to make a non-farcical argument in favor of forcing the rest of us to abide by it? With inane and totally crackpot logic about marrying grandmothers, and asking totally irrelevant false-flag questions that have nothing to do with the issue, such as querying: "Where in the constitution does it say that we have to redefine marriage to mean....., etc etc,"...You only make yourself look wholly idiotic and petty.
You people ought to be ashamed of yourselves. If anybody on our side of the political debate tried to make an argument with such a sad and pathetic foundation, you'd rightfully laugh us right out of the nearest exit door. But when it comes to trying to use logic to support illogical arguments, your ability to be typically hypocritical seems to know no boundaries whatsoever.
Precisely, what, is actually being "Redefined" here, when you claim that marriage will need to be redefined when it is allowed to encompass anything outside of two opposite sex people...?
Did they need to redefine Golf so that it was a "Game played by people of all colors and genders" in order to start letting black people, and then women, join Augusta National?
Did they need to redefine what a bathroom was to encompass a restroom "shared by both blacks and whites" once they got rid of the "Separate But Equal" facilities around until the Civil Rights Act?
Did they need to redefine VOTING as a "right to cast a ballot upon which a choice for elected official is made, and which can be dutifully performed by a member of any gender?" when the womens suffrage movement succeeded?
Did they need to redefine marriage the last time before blacks could marry whites, as an institution in which two consenting adults of *any color* may, as an act of love and commitment, conjoin their lives .... Yada yada yada..."?
(Bonus question: Did all your predecessors decide that rabid, obnoxious arguments about religion and other similarly absurd points had to be made to try to stop it back then, and do you still have the signs they picketed with in your attic, ready to dust off again, as needed?)
The answer to all these questions, as you well know, is no, they did not.---- (Except maybe the bonus question. I can't answer regarding WHAT might be in your attic. Nor do I Want to know.)
What they had to do in each of these cases was STOP acting in a legally discriminatory way and expand rights that had previously actually only been rights for the privileged majority, that were restricted to only those who were seen/decided as *privileged*, because those who were privileged had enough clout, and support, and they chose to legally enforce their own religious bigotry on the rest of us.
Your problem, and the problem of the entire religious establishment...Even those of you who pretend that its not a religious push that is causing you to make your bigoted case, (but everybody knows that its the ONLY reason for you to have to concerned) is as follows: Marriage has ALWAYS been an institution that, in its purest and most appropriate form, involved the conjoining of two consenting adults, ostensibly because of love, under a legal contract that conferred certain rights to a sharing of their existence together.
Just because, thanks to religion, for 5000 years a marriage could only happen between two heterosexual members of the opposite sex does not mean that this actually DEFINES religion. Rather, Marriage itself is a neutral concept, and RELIGION CHOSE RECENTLY TO DEFINE IT AS TWO OPPOSITE SEX MEMBERS WHEN IT GREW APPARENT THAT "Those damned gays have acquired enough respectability and joined the mainstream world with enough clout that, heavens to Betsy, one of them might very well choose to try and GET MARRIED if we don't do something about this! However, in getting with the times, its soon to be FORCED (which I find very sad and very pathetic) to recognize that marriage has for a very long time now, been not just a religious concept but a legal one...And its quite a neutral concept under contemporary law; As such, the existing institution need not be redefined whatsoever. We simply need to ensure that its *scope* improved in such a way that no longer can it/will it be used as a means of legally enforcing religiously encouraged/condoned bigotry.
Just like all the above examples did not involve redefining anything, they will neither have to redefine marriage. They will simply have forcibly make the church acknowledge that, though they don't like it, and though they may be filled with people who push an agenda of restricting human rights for certain groups who they identify as made up of "lesser" people, and try to absolve any blame for doing so by putting it on God's shoulders and saying "look, its not like I have any issue with gays. But the big man over there said its immoral, and so I have no choice! Sorry!" Shame on you all for trying to blame an entity who, even if he existed, certainly wouldn't have created homosexuals without the choice to "undo" their homosexuality if it were something that would condemn them. Just like you have the right to be stupid, ignorant, bigots, I will support and even fight for your right to be and think like an ignorant, uneducated, dark ages hatemonger, because I recognize that whatever inane, pathetic credos you choose to live by are none of my business, I expect you to recognize in return, that you won't be attempting to force your inane pathetic credo down our throats through legal channels. IT IS THIS FALLACY IN YOUR PUSH TO FORCE RELIGIOUS CONCEPTS DOWN OUR THROATS THAT IS THE ONLY REAL PROBLEM HERE. YOU FAIL TO GRASP THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOUR PERSONAL BELIEFS (AS WRONG AS THEY MAY BE), AND EVERYBODY'S LEGAL STANDING AND HUMAN RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.
I will close with this important thought:
Just because your church doesn't WANT marriage to include same sex couples, does not mean that marriage, by definition, doesn't already do so. The problem is simply that our laws haven't acknowledged that marriage has ALWAYS encompassed this definition, and the hateful fundamentalists are fighting to keep it this way.
P.S.-- addressing my initial paragraph, regarding people who use the argument that "Next people will want to marry relatives, pets, and 3 of more people...etc...:
To any one of those, I say fine. If that's what you wanna do, feel free to bring the absolute misery upon yourself that would inherently encompass doing any of those things.... Though since a dog can't technically consent, nor comprehend what is happening, I feel like, maybe the beastiality aspect you like to argue your viewpoint with should just remain the type of Church Marriage that is holy in your eyes, and God's but cannot be legally recognized. As for anything involving consenting adults, if you want to marry half a dozen people and legally confer to them all the rights of a spouse, who am I to stop you? You'd be making your bed, and I don't mind forcing you to lie in it.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for commenting. Heedless Blotterfelon is always interested in striking up a message board dialogue with anyone who is interested enough to do so. So leave a comment...Or leave a question, and if its one asked in seriousness, you'll get a response. We promise.