Once upon a time, a country decided that love is only okay if two people do not have the same genitals. Then a straight girl posted her thoughts on gay marriage on her blog (which barely anyone reads anyway.) It didn’t do much of anything, and she knew it wouldn’t change anything, but she posted it anyway. All she wanted was one person to read it and realize that love is a beautiful thing, no matter what your downstairs business looks like. The end. Or is it the beginning? (Oh shit son I just went all *deep thoughts* on you!)
If marriage is about procreation and not love, does that mean that people should only get married if they possess the desire to have children? Should couples have to sign a contract promising to have children when they get married? What should the deadline for pregnancy be? Two years, five, ten? What about couples living in poverty, should they be forced to have children that they cannot support? Moreover, what about couples in abusive relationships; should these women be forced to give birth to a child that could, in turn, be abused? If a couple has a child and loses it (before birth or in childhood), and they are emotionally wounded from the painful loss of the child, or they feel that they have done their job by having and raising a child (to whatever age the child lived)? Does that couple have to conceive and raise another child, even though that child is unwanted? What should be the punishment for an able couple not reproducing? State mandated divorce? Jail time?
Ø Who decides how long a couple waits before having children?
Ø Who decides the punishment for not having children/the motivation to have children?
Ø Who decides that having a child is worth the pain of being raised by parents that never wanted them?
Ø Who decides which couples are exempt from having children?
Would that mean that couples who want to get married would have to submit to a physical examination, including fertility tests and having their sperm count checked? If one or both members of the potentially married couple are infertile, should they be denied the right to marry? Or, would they be allowed to marry, if they were willing to sign a contract stating that they will undergo any and all fertility treatments, no matter how invasive, expensive, and physically/emotionally exhausting they are? And, if they do try every available treatment, and nothing works, what happens? Are they given an “A for effort” and allowed to remain married, or…what?
Ø Who decides if a couple has enough of a chance of conceiving to make them “worthy” of marriage?
Ø Who decides which treatments would be approved? Would donor sperm/eggs/surrogacy be rejected since both husband and wife would not contribute DNA? Would IVF be okay even though it’s not “traditional” conception?
Ø Who decides if the risks of fertility treatments/pregnancy are worth it?
If marriage=children, that would mean that children=marriage. What about single parents? Should they be forced to marry? Fined? Arrested? Their child (ren) taken away? Should widows/widowers be exempt? Why or why not? Who gets to decide what makes a family a family? Are families with adopted children equal to families with biological children? If yes, why shouldn’t that extend to same sex parents? If no, does that mean that the numerous children up for adoption/living in foster homes would be denied a family? Should they be punished for not having parents, when they have no control over that? Should same sex couples be punished for not having the ability to reproduce with the person they love, when they have no control over that?
Ø Who decides what makes a family?
Ø Who decides if the same rights extend to single moms/dads, widows/widowers, gay/straight couples?
Ø Who decides which people are “worthy” of parenthood?
Ø Who decides how many children determine a family?
If your argument is based in religion, you should remember a few things; 1) Most religious texts point to a day of judgment, where God is the one who does the judging. Not a human being, not a prophet, but God. Although I myself do not claim any specific religion, my family is Catholic and I went to church and religious education for more years than I would have liked. Even though I do not believe in quite a bit of what I was taught, I do remember a lot of it, including when I was taught that God was the one true judge, and that Man cannot judge their fellow man, because Man is not god. I was taught to believe that all Man can do is pray for the souls of sinners, and if you do not do that, if you do not demonstrate empathy and compassion towards your fellow man, you are not truly Christian. The Bible itself teaches us this: “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”- Matthew 5:10-12 2) There are many rules stated in the Bible (and other religious texts) that are not observed by even the most orthodox of followers. I don’t feel like typing them all out, so I’ll let my girl Lacey take it from here (unfortunately, she isn’t REALLY my girl, seeing as I do not know her. Thank you WeHeartIt for the awesome images btw)
Ø Who decides who speaks for God, if God can even be spoken for?
Ø Who decides which of God’s laws are to be followed?
Ø Who decides to believe that “God’s Laws” are truly God’s, and not the opinions of the actual authors of the Bible?
3) No matter what religion you follow, I doubt that any religious text talks about any God hating anyone. One main theme in most religions is what some call “Unconditional Positive Regard,” which means accepting people even if you disagree with their choices. God does not hate gay people. If that is your argument, you can stfu. 4) Marriage is a legally binding contract with the government; marriage is not a religious thing. A wedding can be religious, and religion can be involved in a marriage. However, a marriage itself is not religious. Moreover, if it is, does that mean that only people of certain faiths should be allowed to get married? Wouldn’t that be religious discrimination? On the other hand, should the argument be that people have to have some kind of religion to qualify for marriage? If that were the case, wouldn’t that be a twisted sort of religious persecution? America was founded on freedom of religion after all. Freedom of speech grants us the right to stand up and shout, as well as the right to sit down and shut up; meaning that religious freedom gives us the right to worship any god(s)/goddess (es) we choose, along with the right to not worship at all.
Ø Who decides what religious text should make the rules?
Ø Who decides if this country should turn its back on the very principles that it was founded upon?
Ø Who decides what religions can marry?
ØWho decides what makes a religion a religion?
If you can’t laugh at the above picture, lighten up! Stop being angry and trying to strip people of human rights (in this case, love, and mocking the Pope.) I’ll stop mocking your religious leader when you (and people like you) stop trying to force your beliefs on those of us who are content in our own beliefs. Hey, even those silly gay people have a sense of humor! Maybe you should try it.
Then there’s the age-old argument of “gay marriage violates the sanctity of marriage.” *Sanc·ti·ty noun.1. The quality or condition of being considered sacred; inviolability. 2. Something considered sacred.* That is the definition of “sanctity” according to The Free Dictionary. In my mind, national legalization of gay marriage doesn’t make marriage any less sacred. I think that violating traditional wedding vows is what violates the sanctity of marriage. The first thing that comes to mind is spousal abuse. Spousal abuse is the farthest you can get from “love and cherish…to honor and respect…love you and care for you…to treasure you” etc. additionally, gold digging, cheating, and any form of deception violates the sanctity of marriage? I feel my marriage will be just as sacred if the federal government recognizes gay marriage. Then there will be no gay marriage or straight marriage. It will just be marriage.
Ø Who decides what exactly the sanctity of marriage is anyway?
Ø Who decides that it’s their business if someone else’s marriage is sacred?
Ø Who decides that it’s their business to bother with other people’s life at all?
Marriage should be about love. Love is about what is in someone’s heart, not what’s between their legs. If a relationship is centered on what someone has between their legs it’s not love; it’s lust. If we were to base whom we choose to be in a relationship with on what’s between their legs, there would be a lot more single men. Homosexuality is an attraction. I don’t like guys who are shorter than me (um hello, I’m 5 ft tall) or guys with long hair, I’m just not attracted to them. Some girls just aren’t attracted to guys. I like cute butts, sweet smiles, and blue eyes. Most guys do too, and some would agree with me on whose butts are and aren’t cute. The way I see it is love between two consenting individuals who are equals in a healthy relationship isn’t wrong. This world needs love, now more than ever, and yet many closed-minded Neanderthals in this country have decided that they have the right to decide how others live their lives, if their relationship is “right” or “wrong,” and if they should be able to freely love whomever they want.
Ø Who decides what love is?
Ø Who decides if one couple’s love is superior to another’s?
Ø Why are people so hell bent on dictating how other people live their lives?
Ø Who can truly say if a relationship is right or wrong when right and wrong are relative terms?
Why is it that while lesbians are considered “hot” homosexual males are considered “gross?” Why is there such a stigma on being a homosexual male in this country that teens are killing themselves at record rates due to homophobic harassment? The real kicker is that generations are thought to be getting more open-minded, yet in reality we are becoming crueler, using technology that was intended to bring us together to rip people apart, make them feel so low that they think that suicide is their only option? People do this, they tear each other apart simply because they’re threatened by anyone the slightest bit different from themselves.
Ø Who decides that one person’s life is less valuable than another’s?
Ø Who decides what’s hot and what’s not?
Ø Who decides that it’s okay to treat other people like they are less than human?
I mean, come on. Dumbledore was gay. He’s the opposite of anything evil or bad in the world. If there is anything that the Harry Potter generation is good at it is tolerance. We were groomed from a young age to judge people based on their actions, their character, as opposed to the purity of their blood or the money in their bank. The most loved characters in Harry Potter are the misfits; Harry is a reluctant celebrity who everyone either loves or hates depending on the day, Hermione is an “insufferable know it all” in the words of the late Severus Snape, the Weasley's are poor, Neville is….Neville lol, and Luna is a total space case. And they are the most loved, not despite their willingness to conform, but because of it. Their unique qualities are what made them lovable. Unfortunately, the generation currently populating our elementary, middle, and high schools are not part of the Potter generation; they’re Twihards, which to a diehard Pott-head like myself is no better than Satanists.
Ø Who decided it’s ok to ignore the main lesson taught to us by one of the greatest book series of our time?
Ø Who decides that conformity is a good thing?
Ø Who decided that Stephanie Myer could write? (seriously, I’d like to know this and send them a scathing letter, but that is a subject for another post.)
And honestly, if same sex marriage is recognized by the federal government, what’s the worst that could happen?
Bottom line:
No comments:
Post a Comment