posted by ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
eftychia at 09:31am on 2003-08-01
eftychia at 09:31am on 2003-08-01From a CNN.com page:
"The president has taken a courageous stand in favor of traditional marriage at a moment in American history when the courts are conspiring with anti-family extremists to undermine our nation's most vital institution," said the Rev. Louis Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition.Dammit, "expand", not "undermine", idiot. *grrr* Nobody's explained to me how this "undermines" marriage. Sure, it undermines heterosexual privelege, but that's not what he said.
annoyed
Oh dear.
Okay. Attempts at humor aside, how on earth does wanting to be married equate to being anti-family? IME, people get married because they want to be officially a family, not because they want to undermine marriage. Or... maybe it's just that darling Rev. Sheldon is so insecure that homosexual marriages will cause him to have a divorce?
I don't see how it undermines heterosexual privilege to allow homosexual marriage. As it is, not allowing homosexual marriages is a form of gross discrimination against them. So what happens next? Do homosexuals lose the right to vote, because they're obviously such a dangerous influence? Maybe they lose the right to own property? Or maybe they'll be branded and have to stay within a certain geographical location as basic laborers. Oh, wait, that would put them in the same position as women and blacks in the late 1800s.
I wonder if Rev. Sheldon can operate a TV or car. I doubt it.
Funny, innit...
?!
Hmph.
And none of them seem to get why that's a logical contradiction.
They're not protecting _my_ marriage - that's Jason's and my job, not theirs. They're just adding a twinge of shame and sorrow to my joy, because I get special favors my friends are denied.
History of marriage
During the primaries for the 2000 election, Gary Bauer was on an NPR call-in show, and was asked why government is involved in the definition of marriage at all, and he answered something to the effect of "I guess it's because of government distributing benefits like Social Security..." The man *did not know* that marriage had been anything other than a religious institution before modern times, that the primary legal purpose of marriage for thousands of years was to define inheritance!
So it's worthwhile to remember that while these idiots need to be fought, a lot of them are monumentally ignorant, probably have no concept that marriage is anything other than a church wedding, and probably believe that gay marriage means "the government will force my church to do this."
And furthermore, as my good friend divalion once memorably ranted (though it doesn't seem to be accessible any more), spectacles like "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire" do far more to "undermine" the institution of marriage than gay couples, and you don't hear the self-righteous railing against them. Kinda gives you a hint at what their real problem is, doesn't it?
Re: History of marriage
Reminds me of something I just read - apparently one of the first groups to suggest that marriage ought to be at the couple's own choice, without consideration of "birth or portion" was a radical communist group called the Diggers.
The rest of society was just about as shocked, SHOCKED at the implications of marriage without a dowry or parental arrangements or consideration of relative social status as Mr. Bauer is at the idea of gay marriage.
(no subject)
(no subject)
Which is so clearly incorrect I can't even begin to articulate all the problems inherent in it.
(no subject)
But again, that brings up the whole question of "how do you KNOW what God intends? How much evidence do you have? Do you have any more than those people over there, who argue that God in fact intended the complete opposite?"
(no subject)
(I'm only frothing against closed minded fundies, really.)
marriage
Two humans, communal property, religious congruence or an agreement, a hopeful promise, determination to communicate, negotiate, and compromise... Umm, gender has something to do with integrity? (scratch ear) You think hard before committing, then give yourself to the commitment. Or not. This involves gender? Anyone foolish and hopeful enough to marry ought to be able to throw their lot in with whomever they wish to. It might not work forever, but does gender have anything to do with it? (scratch ear again) I must've missed something.