Someone I know posted this video.
It took me nearly an hour to watch it so that I could tear it apart.
Below the video are the comments I made on the post that my acquaintance made on facebook and which I, in turn, posted on my facebook wall.
So, to point out - one can view this as the government over-ruling YOUR religion... but it can, and more rightly so, be viewed as YOUR religion trying to override the rights of people who do not believe in it. Marriage is, at its origin, a legal contract; religious components came later. If the legal contract of it is to exist then it is blatantly discriminatory to not allow people to marry whom they want to marry due to gender. This is the ONLY legal contract that is limited to a particular gender set as eligibility requirements and that is simply wrong.
The above is my commentary before starting the video... below is my commentary, written as I am watching it in the order that the video presents it.
As for stabilizing our society - bullshit. People who live together now will continue to do so. All that will change, in a societal viewpoint is that a discriminatory practice is removed from the lawbooks and the people who are currently demoted to second-class citizens will have the LEGAL right to be the default heir of their chosen partners. Currently the biological relatives of those people can bar them from visiting an incapacitated loved one in prison and can challenge any legal property directives easily in the event of an unexpected death with no will. If they are married then that goes away and the loved one has those LEGAL protections. I, honestly and bluntly, don't care one iota what individual churches do nor do I care if any of them are willing to perform a wedding ceremony in their facilities - this is entirely about the LAW.
As for comparing gay marriage to incest and pedophilia as a society-harming item: explain to me, simply and concisely, how allowing same-sex couples to have a LEGAL standing that does not change the behavior that the government "permits" to exist will change ANYTHING in public society.
And for the next points:
1 - if that EXCUSE is used then ALL hetero-sexual couples shouldn't be allowed to marry unless they intend, and succeed at having children. Many people do not want children and/or cannot have them. Unless you are willing to state, and make actions toward revoking their LEGAL right to marry this point is null and void on this issue.
2 - Show me the data on this. Show me the data that unequivocally outlines that parents from a heterosexual, two-parent home do better than single parents and better than gay parents. Be sure to include the data of marriages that failed part-way through the children's lives and marriages of people who got married because they felt they HAD to but HATE being married. Be sure to include data on parents who don't like their children and data on those who have too many children. Be sure to include all of this in addition to the data that is reinforcing of the idea. Also - be sure to include data on same-sex couples who CHOOSE to have a child and raise that child. Be sure to compare those "successful" child raising values against the heterosexual numbers and do a solid numerical comparison on percentages of children who are detriments to society. The numbers will tell the story that is counter to this video's claim.
3 - How does allowing ONLY heterosexual marriage protect women? My girlfriend, when presented with this statement quickly and easily claimed she doesn't feel traditional marriage protects her... and even asked "protects me from what?"
4 - How does it civilize men? As an unmarried man in this country I find this idea repugnant and derogatory.
The data outlines that most incidents of violence against women are actually perpetrated against them by their significant others and, often, that means their HUSBANDS. How is it that that data can be true AND points 3 and 4 be true? It can't be. Points 3 and 4 are, like the ones before them, based entirely on perception and an idealized state of society that simply does not exist.
5 - Show me the data. I know that being married will lower one's car insruance because, typically, married people spend more time at home than un-married people. The rest rest of these things need data to back them up... and that data needs to be cleansed of any trends that have stronger correlations that could lead to those statistics... such as neighborhoods, familial income, number of children, etc.
The claim that same-sex marriage creates NO benefit is blatantly wrong. It allows for the full equality of everyone in the eyes of the law. Discrimination is a slippery slope and it can be applied to anyone; if it s allowed for anyone. This also allows people to decide who is their default next of kin which is an important means of passing along accumulated wealth and deciding on what care is best for someone who is sick.
For that matter, if one actually assumes that all of the points above are valid then:
1 & 2 - Married homosexual couples who choose to adopt (and make no mistake, they can adopt now) will generate a two-parent household that brings the same benefits to children that heterosexual married couples bring.
3 & 4 - If married men are inherently more civilized and married women are inherently protected (from what?) then we should strive for as many married men and women as we can get. Right now we are eliminated 10% of the population from being ALLOWED to marry. That means that, at least, 10% of women are unprotected and 10% of men are uncivilized because they are unmarried. Allowing them to marry will reduce that number.
5 - The same things that might generate those societal improvements in neighborhoods due to married couples will also apply to married homosexual couples.
Essentially, it allows the same benefits to society that traditional marriage provides to society. EXACTLY THE SAME benefits. All of the benefits outlined above can be applied equally to ANY married couple regardless of their gender.
Claiming that homosexual marriage "merely validates sex partners" is a hollow argument as heterosexual marriage does EXACTLY the same thing if the couple has no intention of raising children..... and, on top of that, being married does not magically make you a good parent. There are plenty of married people who are TERRIBLE parents. This argument is invalid. I thinkthe people behind this video would be surprised to find that more and more couples are forming where children are not the primary motivating force and more and more of them are forming where children happen, despite not wanting them and more and more children are happening outside of wedlock because more and more people just don't care about the traditional structure that RELIGION says is best for the children.
When the video states that the childless marriages are the exception and not the rule and, therefore, shouldn't be considered it invalidates that argument by using exceptions to what happens in the legal world to make it's point. One cannot simultaneously decry exceptions and invalid and then use them to support one's own argument.
The idea that schools with teach kids to be gay is ridiculous. The argument over whether or not this should be allowed has been a far greater introduction to the topic of homosexual marriage than it EVER would be on its own. Schools, at most, will treat it like it is what it is - something that sometimes happens and that it's fine. Let the people who have a difference preference than you be the way they are; it's none of anyone else's business.
As for the video's comment that the law treats everyone equally because everyone can marry someone of the opposite sex is garbage. That's like saying everyone can invest in google; in theory everyone can but the cost of the stocks prohibits most from being able to. Marrying someone of the opposite gender isn't the point - marrying someone whom you love and want to spend the rest of your life with IS the point. That is the ENTIRE point. A large group of people are prohibited from doing that. To say otherwise is to hold onto ideals of marriage that have changed over time repeatedly... and, thus, invalidates the idea that that is the core reason for marriage. I cannot buy a wife in exchange for livestock. I cannot sell a daughter into marriage. I cannot take a virgin military captive as a wife. I cannot force my brother's widow to become my wife. I cannot take multiple wives. All of these things are part of "traditional" marriage yet none of them are held true in law in 2012. What is so special about THIS barrier? It is that this barrier scares homophobic people. This barrier makes people think that equality is only for "normal" people.
As for discriminating against behaviors - that is completely correct. The government is discriminating against behaviors; but also against sexual organs. It is saying that it is the business of the government to determine who is allowed to bump genitalia together in the privacy of their own home. It is saying that consenting adults have no privacy when it comes to sex. It is saying that the comfort of some should outweigh the freedom of others. It is saying that if the government does;t like your behavior it can prevent you from having legal rights because of it… even when that behavior hurts no one and should be left alone. This argument is ludicrous because it really boils down to - the government is allowed to tell you whom you can have sex with in the privacy of your own home.
And to bring it back - people who are BARRED from marrying their loved one ARE being discriminated against. If one is unconscious and hospitalized then that one's blood relatives (even if they haven't spoken in YEARS) have a greater right under the LAW than the person who may have lived with the person for decades. Who is better equipped to make decisions for that person that correspond to their wishes? The estranged family or the loved one who cohabitants with them? If one member of a couple is run over by a bus and killed and the house and vehicles are in their name but both partners paid equally for them the family can the ALL of that away; is that fair? No. Marriage protects the rights of property and the rights of visitation in the hospital. Marriage protects other rights, too.
As for the same-sex marriage advocates needing to be more tolerant - simply not true. The instances where they are not are, again, the outliers and they are smaller in number than the instances where people who want to have a homosexual marriage are being discriminated against in some form or another. The raw disallowance of being ABLE to get married to a loved one is a constant discrimination against homosexual people. They experience it daily. People supporting "traditional" marriage are only experiencing intolerance when they voice their ideas on this continued hatred and bigotry to people who will, ultimately, be found to stand on the right side of history.
"Homosexual relationships are ALREADY TOLERATED" - this, alone, summarizes the entire video. It also summarizes exactly why both sides feel they have a position to support. I don't want to be "tolerated" - its derogatory. You wouldn't want your child to be "tolerated" at school or anywhere else. You wouldn't want your pets to be "tolerated" you wouldn't want yourself to be "tolerated." Toleration is not enough because it is not equality. The supporters of "traditional" marriage think this is enough because they can't see how allowing same-sex marriage licenses will not harm them at all but will grant equal rights to an entire segment of the population that is still constantly under attack by RELIGION.
I'll also point out that many of the same arguments presented in this video are similar to those presented against allowing interracial marriages and, dating back further, to allowing non-white people the opportunity to be recognized as people… and dating back further to discriminate against left-handed people. They are empty arguments that come from a place of fear and hatred of things that are different rather than a place of reason and rationality.
So, I challenge those supporting this video, as I have challenged supported of "traditional" marriage in the past - explain it to me. Convince me. Please. Explain it to me like a child... and in a way that I cannot argue. I have been asking, since the first time this came up on the ballot in Maine, for people to explain to me why this is wrong in a logical and concise manner that I cannot argue with using logical points to invalidate the arguments presented to me... Thus far NO ONE has been able to do it. The answers ALWAYS boil down to "because God is against it" (or some paraphrasing of that) or "because I don't like it." - Neither of those are good reasons for LAW. Separation of church and state outlines the former and what you feel is not the same as what others feel is the latter...
Lastly - All of this text comes from someone who thinks marriage, in any form, is a foolish and inefficient way of imparting legal rights to another person. I, personally, think it should be completely abolished from the law books and that NO ONE should be allowed to get marriages because they simply should not exist. There is a MUCH simpler way to handle all of these rights-granting permissions without all the hoopla and garbage that comes along with marriage.
Please, if you support "traiditonal" marriage than be PERFECTLY blunt... and perfectly selfish. Tell me how allowing others the right to marry their loved one will harm YOU in any way. How will it change YOUR life if two women or two men go to city hall and pay the fee for their marriage license and then pay an officiant to marry them? How will that slight economic boost to the local municipality and an officiant hurt YOU in any way? How will it change your life in any manner other than force you to go "OH NO THOSE GAY PEOPLE MIGHT BE MARRIED NOW?"
Really. Tell me. I want to know how it will damage your life.
Showing posts with label marriage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label marriage. Show all posts
Monday, November 5, 2012
Monday, October 22, 2012
Equal rights
I know I have posted on this before.
I also know this is an important issue so it deserves to be posted on multiple times... as many times as it takes for the issue to go away.
I also know that it is not going away in my home state until is passes as law; and that it will not go away for two more generations after that, perhaps longer (proof being that we still have racism).
The issue I am talking about is the rights for people of the same gender to get married to each other.
I've said before that I think that the entire concept of marriage is broken; I believe it is an intrusion by the government and church(es) into the private lives of people where those entities do not belong.
Marriage, however, solves one legal issue that exists; it resolves whom the individual wants as their default heir.
I, personally, believe that there are several ways this can be handled in a MUCH simpler manner. I believe that there are many ways that would be considerably more efficient for all involved. Could they be abused and misappropriated by spiteful heirs? Certainly. But so can the default heir process and so can the process of the "last will and testament." All that one needs is more time, energy and money than the opposing party.
That being the case I will NOT discuss the nature of marriage as a valid selection of default heir nor will I be discussing the alternatives (at least not in this post). What I WILL do is post a recent facebook timeline post I wrote and discuss the core responses I received that tried to argue it.
This is what I wrote there:
The more I see "no on one" stickers/signs the more angry they make me. If you believe no one one is a good idea that is your prerogative and your right to vote that way... But if you do keep in mind that that "no" vote is also voting "no" to equality, a "no" vote to separation of church and state, and "no" additional business related to additional marriages in the state. It is also a "yes" vote for fear, bigotry, and hatred. It won't change or damage heterosexual marriages; it will extend LEGAL protection of marriage to ALL. If you cast a "no" vote don't tell me about it unless you are prepared to explain to me why you feel discrimination, fear, religion, bigotry, and hate belong in the law. "It's God's will" and "because its not normal" are not valid reasons for LEGAL decision making.... The latter is not valid for deciding someone else's life at all.....
br> I received many comments in support of this and one that was against my blanket declaration. It pointed out that I am painting a picture where all of the people, approximately half of the population of this country, are automatically fear-laden bigots.
It made this comment as though I did not realize I was making a blanket statement. It made this comment as though I might be swayed in MY opinion on the issue because I am calling the opposing view irrational.
It, in short, tried to bully me into changing my mind on this issue through the use of guilt.
I replied that that post with this:
Matthew: you are welcome. I will hold the position until someone can give me solid, logical and completely non-religious reasons for why the discrimination should be allowed in the law books. I don't care if the religious aspects stay defined as they are and I don't care if specific churches and specific religious persons refuse to perform the ceremony... What I do care about is one religion telling everyone else that their way should influence the law in such a way the causes a tenth of the population to not be able to make their loved one the default heir.... To make their loved one the person who is ALWAYS allowed to visit in the hospital.... To make the their loved one be the one who is officially recognized as such. To prevent that equality is bigotry. To prevent that is a form of hatred. To prevent that is discrimination. To prevent that is oppression. To prevent equality in the eyes of the LAW means you are afraid of something..... This is as important for humanity as allowing couples of different races to marry was when that was a legal issue. All of the same arguments are being used against homosexual people and all of the same fear mongering is being used. The arguments are, literally, the same ones. Applying the to interracial couples seems foolish; why is applying them to same-sex couples acceptable? It seems obvious from your post you disagree. I welcome you to put together all of your arguments and try to persuade me I am wrong. So far no one has been able to and each attempt has strengthened my position that the morally right thing on this one is to allow equality in the eyes of the law. If you wish to try and persuade me in this thread you are welcome to do so.... But others will join in. If you wish it to be a private conversation I welcome that, too. The response deviated from the conversation by informing me that the way to keep friends on facebook is to avoid speaking of politics and to avoid speaking about religion and then to inform me that this topic is both.
It then pointed out that my stance is hateful and discriminatory toward those who oppose gay marriage and informed me that the poster was not stating which side of the topic they fall on.
I replied to that with this:
I don't hate the people - I hate the idea of oppressing people. Voting to prevent this is oppressing people. You are correct - you did not say what side of this you are on.... and I made a reasonable assumption that you were voicing an objection because you felt that it was directed toward you. If that assumption was in error - I'm sorry. But I am not sorry about feeling that preventing equal rights for people is fear-based bigotry that is based on forcing religion into the law books. Because it is. Until someone can give me a logical set of reasons to the contrary that I cannot logically invalidate I will hold that position.
What baffles me about this is that it is CLEARLY a means of oppressing people. There is no other word for it. Why view that they should have equal rights and my condemnation of anyone who does not support it does nothing except, possibly, hurt their feelings. My stance that the law should be changed does nothing to the people who can already marry; they won't suddenly be not able to marry; they won't, suddenly, have their marriages invalidated; they won't suddenly all turn gay. Nor will this change make people who are not gay or make people who are curious more gay. This law change will, literally, do NOTHING to harm anyone. All that it will do is allow the homosexual community to have the same LEGAL right as everyone else to make their loved one and chosen partner their default heir in the event of their death and allow them the power of attorney in the case of their loved one being incapacitated in some way through the same mechanism that is available to everyone else.
That's it.
In each instance of someone confronting me about my stance on this (or vice-versa) I have asked them to outline to me why the LEGAL right should be withheld. I have asked them to give me solid reasons that are rooted in logic and reason which I cannot invalidate through using the same logic and reason that they are using.
To date EVERY attempt to do so has failed. Every attempt has failed to last more than a few moments before the opponent runs out of excuses for their stance and runs into "because it's wrong" or "because God says so" as the root reason for their opposition. Neither of those are good reasons for making LAW when it comes the truly private lives of two consenting adults.
I open up the comments of this post to discussion.
If you believe that homosexuals should be second-class citizens and barred from the legal right to marry whom they choose then, please, by all means, convince me you are right. Apply logic and reason to your stance. Give me a reason to change my mind. But your logic and reason had better hold up because I will point out any and all holes in it that I see.... Just as I point out the holes in the very existence of marriage as a legal institution (which I am happy to do).
The bottom line is that marriage is currently a legal contract between two adults. It should be available to ALL adults; not just 90% of them.
I also know this is an important issue so it deserves to be posted on multiple times... as many times as it takes for the issue to go away.
I also know that it is not going away in my home state until is passes as law; and that it will not go away for two more generations after that, perhaps longer (proof being that we still have racism).
The issue I am talking about is the rights for people of the same gender to get married to each other.
I've said before that I think that the entire concept of marriage is broken; I believe it is an intrusion by the government and church(es) into the private lives of people where those entities do not belong.
Marriage, however, solves one legal issue that exists; it resolves whom the individual wants as their default heir.
I, personally, believe that there are several ways this can be handled in a MUCH simpler manner. I believe that there are many ways that would be considerably more efficient for all involved. Could they be abused and misappropriated by spiteful heirs? Certainly. But so can the default heir process and so can the process of the "last will and testament." All that one needs is more time, energy and money than the opposing party.
That being the case I will NOT discuss the nature of marriage as a valid selection of default heir nor will I be discussing the alternatives (at least not in this post). What I WILL do is post a recent facebook timeline post I wrote and discuss the core responses I received that tried to argue it.
This is what I wrote there:
The more I see "no on one" stickers/signs the more angry they make me. If you believe no one one is a good idea that is your prerogative and your right to vote that way... But if you do keep in mind that that "no" vote is also voting "no" to equality, a "no" vote to separation of church and state, and "no" additional business related to additional marriages in the state. It is also a "yes" vote for fear, bigotry, and hatred. It won't change or damage heterosexual marriages; it will extend LEGAL protection of marriage to ALL. If you cast a "no" vote don't tell me about it unless you are prepared to explain to me why you feel discrimination, fear, religion, bigotry, and hate belong in the law. "It's God's will" and "because its not normal" are not valid reasons for LEGAL decision making.... The latter is not valid for deciding someone else's life at all.....
br> I received many comments in support of this and one that was against my blanket declaration. It pointed out that I am painting a picture where all of the people, approximately half of the population of this country, are automatically fear-laden bigots.
It made this comment as though I did not realize I was making a blanket statement. It made this comment as though I might be swayed in MY opinion on the issue because I am calling the opposing view irrational.
It, in short, tried to bully me into changing my mind on this issue through the use of guilt.
I replied that that post with this:
Matthew: you are welcome. I will hold the position until someone can give me solid, logical and completely non-religious reasons for why the discrimination should be allowed in the law books. I don't care if the religious aspects stay defined as they are and I don't care if specific churches and specific religious persons refuse to perform the ceremony... What I do care about is one religion telling everyone else that their way should influence the law in such a way the causes a tenth of the population to not be able to make their loved one the default heir.... To make their loved one the person who is ALWAYS allowed to visit in the hospital.... To make the their loved one be the one who is officially recognized as such. To prevent that equality is bigotry. To prevent that is a form of hatred. To prevent that is discrimination. To prevent that is oppression. To prevent equality in the eyes of the LAW means you are afraid of something..... This is as important for humanity as allowing couples of different races to marry was when that was a legal issue. All of the same arguments are being used against homosexual people and all of the same fear mongering is being used. The arguments are, literally, the same ones. Applying the to interracial couples seems foolish; why is applying them to same-sex couples acceptable? It seems obvious from your post you disagree. I welcome you to put together all of your arguments and try to persuade me I am wrong. So far no one has been able to and each attempt has strengthened my position that the morally right thing on this one is to allow equality in the eyes of the law. If you wish to try and persuade me in this thread you are welcome to do so.... But others will join in. If you wish it to be a private conversation I welcome that, too. The response deviated from the conversation by informing me that the way to keep friends on facebook is to avoid speaking of politics and to avoid speaking about religion and then to inform me that this topic is both.
It then pointed out that my stance is hateful and discriminatory toward those who oppose gay marriage and informed me that the poster was not stating which side of the topic they fall on.
I replied to that with this:
I don't hate the people - I hate the idea of oppressing people. Voting to prevent this is oppressing people. You are correct - you did not say what side of this you are on.... and I made a reasonable assumption that you were voicing an objection because you felt that it was directed toward you. If that assumption was in error - I'm sorry. But I am not sorry about feeling that preventing equal rights for people is fear-based bigotry that is based on forcing religion into the law books. Because it is. Until someone can give me a logical set of reasons to the contrary that I cannot logically invalidate I will hold that position.
What baffles me about this is that it is CLEARLY a means of oppressing people. There is no other word for it. Why view that they should have equal rights and my condemnation of anyone who does not support it does nothing except, possibly, hurt their feelings. My stance that the law should be changed does nothing to the people who can already marry; they won't suddenly be not able to marry; they won't, suddenly, have their marriages invalidated; they won't suddenly all turn gay. Nor will this change make people who are not gay or make people who are curious more gay. This law change will, literally, do NOTHING to harm anyone. All that it will do is allow the homosexual community to have the same LEGAL right as everyone else to make their loved one and chosen partner their default heir in the event of their death and allow them the power of attorney in the case of their loved one being incapacitated in some way through the same mechanism that is available to everyone else.
That's it.
In each instance of someone confronting me about my stance on this (or vice-versa) I have asked them to outline to me why the LEGAL right should be withheld. I have asked them to give me solid reasons that are rooted in logic and reason which I cannot invalidate through using the same logic and reason that they are using.
To date EVERY attempt to do so has failed. Every attempt has failed to last more than a few moments before the opponent runs out of excuses for their stance and runs into "because it's wrong" or "because God says so" as the root reason for their opposition. Neither of those are good reasons for making LAW when it comes the truly private lives of two consenting adults.
I open up the comments of this post to discussion.
If you believe that homosexuals should be second-class citizens and barred from the legal right to marry whom they choose then, please, by all means, convince me you are right. Apply logic and reason to your stance. Give me a reason to change my mind. But your logic and reason had better hold up because I will point out any and all holes in it that I see.... Just as I point out the holes in the very existence of marriage as a legal institution (which I am happy to do).
The bottom line is that marriage is currently a legal contract between two adults. It should be available to ALL adults; not just 90% of them.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Rights and Intolerance
I have encountered, on many occasions, a very heated debate on the topic of "gay marriage."
It saddens me greatly when I encounter this topic because, to date, everyone I have encountered who is opposed to "gay marriage" is completely and totally missing the point of the argument.
Those (again, all whom I have encountered) oppose the issue based solely on their intolerance of the idea of two people of the same gender getting "married" because, to them, the term "marriage" MUST mean one man and one woman; most of them also include joined together in the eyes of God in their definition.
Each and every person who had brought the argument against "gay marriage" to me, or whom I have brought the opposing argument to, has failed, utterly and completely to comprehend that this is NOT about marriage. This is NOT about sexual orientation. This issue is NOT about the religious morality that they feel.
This issue is completely and totally about equality. There should be no such thing as "gay marriage" there should only be marriage (at this point I am using this word completely and totally from the legal point of view without any inclusion of the religious aspects of the word). Marriage brings certain legal ramifications to it. One of those ramifications is to, essentially, allow an individual to alter the default heir in the event of their death from their blood relatives to the individual of their choosing. Another is the secure the right to visit an unconscious patient in the hospital to a singular individual who is not related to you by blood AND promote that person's wishes above all others. Marriage also grants a single individual the right to make decisions about your treatment in the event that you are unable to communicate your wishes to the medical staff. Marriage, essentially, lets you appoint the person whom you trust the most to be the guardian of your wishes and care in the event that you cannot guard those things for yourself AND it lets you leave behind everything you work for to the person of your choosing in an, essentially, incontestable fashion. There is no other legal structure that generates all of these default rights. Marriage it the fastest and most recognized path and it is recognized worldwide as a valid legal contract between two, non-blood-related adults.
The way out current legal structure is built these rights are specifically withheld from a group of people. These rights are withheld from anyone whose chosen individual is of the same gender that they are. This is ludicrous and backwards. The law should not discriminate against people because they are choosing a person of a specific gender to be their legal "next of kin" anymore than it should discriminate against people who choose to make their hair blue or pierce their ears. The law should allow for ANY two consenting adults to enter into such a legally binding contract of their own free will. The law currently prohibits the creation and execution of this ONE legal contract based solely on the gender of the participants.
This is NOT about marriage; it is about the ability to enter into a legal contract. No other area of the law is allowed to bar individuals from creating and entering into a contract based on their gender. Once upon a time there were such laws and they have been stricken down in each instance as being unconstitutional and in violation of civil liberties.
Simply put: marriage as a legal contract should not discriminate against any individuals.
There is a certain irony to the intolerance of intolerance. Yet, the only thing that people should be intolerant of is intolerance of things which cause no harm to others.
In nearly every instance where I have discussed the "gay marriage" issue with those who oppose it I have encountered the argument that finding the intolerant viewpoint to be abhorrent means I am being intolerant to the views of the opposing party. I, in each case, have admitted that they are correct. I am, in fact, being intolerant of their intolerance. I am being intolerant of their view that creating a second class of citizen is appropriate. I an being intolerant of their view that it is appropriate to subdue a population of people solely based on which gender they prefer.
In each an every instance of this discussion I have then pointed out that if my intolerance of their ideas were to be enacted as law it would not harm anyone. If my intolerance of their ideas were enacted as law it would not end their ability to marry someone of the opposing gender. Enacting my view point on the law would not destroy their ability to get married in a church. Enacting my viewpoint on the law would not increase or decrease the divorce rate among people marrying someone of the opposing gender. Enacting my view on the law would not violate the rights of anyone who can currently acquire a marriage license to designate their choice of individual as the "next of kin" in the eyes of the law. My viewpoint, in short, would not alter their way of life. I then point out that their viewpoint on the situation suppressed the raw ABILITY of a large population of people from being able to apply the legal rights of marriage to their relationship. Their viewpoint continues to harm others. Their relationship continues to prevent others from naming their designated caregiver and default heir. Their viewpoint stifles the happiness and potential happiness of an entire population group. Their viewpoint prevents people from using corporate benefits in many companies. Their viewpoint, if upheld, will continue to DELIBERATELY suppress the rights of an entire group of people.
I have had it thrown at me that it doesn't matter because it is a small group of people that are affected so no one should care - I have responded by pointing out that we have handicapped parking spaces to cater to a small group of people because we all felt it was appropriate to do so. I have had it pointed out that a small portion of the homosexual community actual want to get married - I have pointed out that there is a large portion of the heterosexual community that doesn't care about getting married, either.
I have had it pointed out that homosexual couples cannot generate offspring - I have pointed out that I know a great many heterosexual couples who have NO interest in generating offspring. I then ask if they should be allowed to get married? I have also pointed out that there is a small amount of people whom are incapable of creating offspring whether they want to or not - should they be barred from getting married? I have pointed out that people who are far beyond the age of generating offspring get married, too - should they be barred from getting married? I have even pointed out that there are people who get married and divorced at an alarming rate - should they have been barred from getting married in the first place?
I have had it pointed out that some homosexual couples will, inevitably, part ways and have to get divorced - I have pointed out that more than half of all marriages now, which preclude any homosexual couple, end in divorce.
I have had it pointed out that homosexual couples have a historically higher promiscuity rate than heterosexual couples - I have pointed out that this is prejudicial and does not have the data to back it up AND that there are MANY extremely promiscuous heterosexuals out there who are allowed to marry if they so choose.
I have had people point out that homosexual individuals have the exact same right to marry a person of the opposing gender as any heterosexual individual has - I have pointed out that this flies in the face of the very concept of marriage; a concept of adding a single individual whom you love into your family as the "next of kin" to live out your days together and care for each other.
I have had people point out that marriage is against their religion - I have pointed out that marriage was originally a BUSINESS transaction. Marriage existed before their religion. Their religion also has NO PLACE in my government.
To date I have been given absolutely NO evidence on why there should be ANY reason that the legal construct of marriage should exclude anyone from marrying the individual person of their choosing.
The more attempts people make to convince me otherwise AND FAIL, the more they strengthen my viewpoint.
On a supplemental note - I actually am opposed to the entire notion of marriage as a legal construct. I believe it is the single most accepted intrusion into the personal lives by the government and/or church. I believe that the word "marriage" should be removed from all legal documentation and replaced with a "civil union" which is a five-year binding contract between any two persons who can consent to the contract. It should auto-renew unless EITHER of the participants choose to terminate the renewal. There should be no alimony provision.
I believe that marriage, more often than not, destroys lives (as is evidenced by the greater than 50% divorce rate and the realization that there are many couples who live in misery rather than get divorced). More importantly than that I believe that if heterosexual individuals have the right to royally screw up their lives by getting married that homosexual individuals should have the identical right.
Am I intolerant of anti-"gay marriage" view? Yes. I am intolerant of that intolerance because it is ignorant and lacks all reason. It serves only to hurt people whereas the opposing view hurts no one.
It's not intolerance when it is seeking equality; it's not intolerant to want to remove intolerance from an intolerantly unfair system.
It saddens me greatly when I encounter this topic because, to date, everyone I have encountered who is opposed to "gay marriage" is completely and totally missing the point of the argument.
Those (again, all whom I have encountered) oppose the issue based solely on their intolerance of the idea of two people of the same gender getting "married" because, to them, the term "marriage" MUST mean one man and one woman; most of them also include joined together in the eyes of God in their definition.
Each and every person who had brought the argument against "gay marriage" to me, or whom I have brought the opposing argument to, has failed, utterly and completely to comprehend that this is NOT about marriage. This is NOT about sexual orientation. This issue is NOT about the religious morality that they feel.
This issue is completely and totally about equality. There should be no such thing as "gay marriage" there should only be marriage (at this point I am using this word completely and totally from the legal point of view without any inclusion of the religious aspects of the word). Marriage brings certain legal ramifications to it. One of those ramifications is to, essentially, allow an individual to alter the default heir in the event of their death from their blood relatives to the individual of their choosing. Another is the secure the right to visit an unconscious patient in the hospital to a singular individual who is not related to you by blood AND promote that person's wishes above all others. Marriage also grants a single individual the right to make decisions about your treatment in the event that you are unable to communicate your wishes to the medical staff. Marriage, essentially, lets you appoint the person whom you trust the most to be the guardian of your wishes and care in the event that you cannot guard those things for yourself AND it lets you leave behind everything you work for to the person of your choosing in an, essentially, incontestable fashion. There is no other legal structure that generates all of these default rights. Marriage it the fastest and most recognized path and it is recognized worldwide as a valid legal contract between two, non-blood-related adults.
The way out current legal structure is built these rights are specifically withheld from a group of people. These rights are withheld from anyone whose chosen individual is of the same gender that they are. This is ludicrous and backwards. The law should not discriminate against people because they are choosing a person of a specific gender to be their legal "next of kin" anymore than it should discriminate against people who choose to make their hair blue or pierce their ears. The law should allow for ANY two consenting adults to enter into such a legally binding contract of their own free will. The law currently prohibits the creation and execution of this ONE legal contract based solely on the gender of the participants.
This is NOT about marriage; it is about the ability to enter into a legal contract. No other area of the law is allowed to bar individuals from creating and entering into a contract based on their gender. Once upon a time there were such laws and they have been stricken down in each instance as being unconstitutional and in violation of civil liberties.
Simply put: marriage as a legal contract should not discriminate against any individuals.
There is a certain irony to the intolerance of intolerance. Yet, the only thing that people should be intolerant of is intolerance of things which cause no harm to others.
In nearly every instance where I have discussed the "gay marriage" issue with those who oppose it I have encountered the argument that finding the intolerant viewpoint to be abhorrent means I am being intolerant to the views of the opposing party. I, in each case, have admitted that they are correct. I am, in fact, being intolerant of their intolerance. I am being intolerant of their view that creating a second class of citizen is appropriate. I an being intolerant of their view that it is appropriate to subdue a population of people solely based on which gender they prefer.
In each an every instance of this discussion I have then pointed out that if my intolerance of their ideas were to be enacted as law it would not harm anyone. If my intolerance of their ideas were enacted as law it would not end their ability to marry someone of the opposing gender. Enacting my view point on the law would not destroy their ability to get married in a church. Enacting my viewpoint on the law would not increase or decrease the divorce rate among people marrying someone of the opposing gender. Enacting my view on the law would not violate the rights of anyone who can currently acquire a marriage license to designate their choice of individual as the "next of kin" in the eyes of the law. My viewpoint, in short, would not alter their way of life. I then point out that their viewpoint on the situation suppressed the raw ABILITY of a large population of people from being able to apply the legal rights of marriage to their relationship. Their viewpoint continues to harm others. Their relationship continues to prevent others from naming their designated caregiver and default heir. Their viewpoint stifles the happiness and potential happiness of an entire population group. Their viewpoint prevents people from using corporate benefits in many companies. Their viewpoint, if upheld, will continue to DELIBERATELY suppress the rights of an entire group of people.
I have had it thrown at me that it doesn't matter because it is a small group of people that are affected so no one should care - I have responded by pointing out that we have handicapped parking spaces to cater to a small group of people because we all felt it was appropriate to do so. I have had it pointed out that a small portion of the homosexual community actual want to get married - I have pointed out that there is a large portion of the heterosexual community that doesn't care about getting married, either.
I have had it pointed out that homosexual couples cannot generate offspring - I have pointed out that I know a great many heterosexual couples who have NO interest in generating offspring. I then ask if they should be allowed to get married? I have also pointed out that there is a small amount of people whom are incapable of creating offspring whether they want to or not - should they be barred from getting married? I have pointed out that people who are far beyond the age of generating offspring get married, too - should they be barred from getting married? I have even pointed out that there are people who get married and divorced at an alarming rate - should they have been barred from getting married in the first place?
I have had it pointed out that some homosexual couples will, inevitably, part ways and have to get divorced - I have pointed out that more than half of all marriages now, which preclude any homosexual couple, end in divorce.
I have had it pointed out that homosexual couples have a historically higher promiscuity rate than heterosexual couples - I have pointed out that this is prejudicial and does not have the data to back it up AND that there are MANY extremely promiscuous heterosexuals out there who are allowed to marry if they so choose.
I have had people point out that homosexual individuals have the exact same right to marry a person of the opposing gender as any heterosexual individual has - I have pointed out that this flies in the face of the very concept of marriage; a concept of adding a single individual whom you love into your family as the "next of kin" to live out your days together and care for each other.
I have had people point out that marriage is against their religion - I have pointed out that marriage was originally a BUSINESS transaction. Marriage existed before their religion. Their religion also has NO PLACE in my government.
To date I have been given absolutely NO evidence on why there should be ANY reason that the legal construct of marriage should exclude anyone from marrying the individual person of their choosing.
The more attempts people make to convince me otherwise AND FAIL, the more they strengthen my viewpoint.
On a supplemental note - I actually am opposed to the entire notion of marriage as a legal construct. I believe it is the single most accepted intrusion into the personal lives by the government and/or church. I believe that the word "marriage" should be removed from all legal documentation and replaced with a "civil union" which is a five-year binding contract between any two persons who can consent to the contract. It should auto-renew unless EITHER of the participants choose to terminate the renewal. There should be no alimony provision.
I believe that marriage, more often than not, destroys lives (as is evidenced by the greater than 50% divorce rate and the realization that there are many couples who live in misery rather than get divorced). More importantly than that I believe that if heterosexual individuals have the right to royally screw up their lives by getting married that homosexual individuals should have the identical right.
Am I intolerant of anti-"gay marriage" view? Yes. I am intolerant of that intolerance because it is ignorant and lacks all reason. It serves only to hurt people whereas the opposing view hurts no one.
It's not intolerance when it is seeking equality; it's not intolerant to want to remove intolerance from an intolerantly unfair system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)