Log in

No account? Create an account
The Argument Clinic

Doppleganger posting in The Argument Clinic
User: argument_clinic (posted by evilgrins)
Date: January 14th, 2010
Subject: a lil' gay marriage rant
Security: Public
Media:The View
Tags:gay marriage
xposted to I'm right and you're wrongArgument·Clinic, a laugh for your soulSilly·Religion, & Cwazy AmericansUSA·de·Quirky

10:18 AM 1/14/10 · While there is cettainly more to it, seems to me that the whole gay marriage thing largely churns and storms around 3 main issues:

"man may not lay with man as he does with woman"
This is a line from the Bible, supposedly, and as with a lot of issues...people love playing the religious card. It is the 'Word of God' which I am sketchy on. In the 1st, the Bible isn't a complete work. There was a great council centuries back that decided what would go in the Bible and what would not. People often wonder why the time between Jesus as a child and an adult isn't covered. Fact of the matter is there are many Books of Jesus but they were excluded for fear they would portray him in a bad light, along the lines of it portaryed him not only having his powers as a little boy but having to learn to use them responsibly.

If you ever wish to know those lost years of Jesus I believe they're in the Gnostic version.

Along with how everyone knows the Devil was originally an angel, which isn't in the Bible at all, and the fact that priests are forbidden to have sex, also not in the Bible...let us simply say that you cann't use the Bible to define the world as it is today. You also cannot use it as the authoritative Word of God as beyond the 10 Commandments, most of it wasn't written by the Big Guy. Inspired by is not the same thing!

Also, to go in a more literal sense, men really don't lay with men the same way as they do with women. Ignoring for a moment this really only refers to gay men (guess the Bible is cool with lesbians) if you work out the physical realities of sex that's not a lot of heterosexual positioning. Ironically, both back in the day and still in some areas of the world, women laying with men the way men lay with men is/was viewed as a mortal sin. Something along the lines of cavorting as beasts do (humans are the only animal that makes such a big deal about not being such) the doggie·style position has long been viewed badly by those who supposedly have religious fortitude.

My 2¢? I think that insecure men, centuries back, inserted that into the Bible in a vain hope of stamping out what they considered a threat. It goes along with the same idiocy as gays in the military, soldiers worried that the person watching their backs might be also checking them out would somehow make war more dangerous.

the sanctity of marriage
This one makes me laugh my ass off everytime I hear about it coming up. Igonoring that most gay unions I know of are far more stable than the heterosexual ones...actually, no, let's go with that. Possibly the one major advantage to gay marriage being illegal is that there haven't been a large number of gay divorces...

...and isn't it funny that the people that are concerned about the 'sanctity' of marriage are those that have the right and get divorced all the freaking time.

Heterosexual unions aren't doing much for the so called sanctity. Divorce rates seem to get higher every year, not just counting the people that get married drunk in Vegas one weekend and divorced sober in a week or so after, and infidelity would be the world's oldest profession if people got paid for it. Similar to how some people seem to use abortion as a form of birth control, which is bad, there are those that get married and divorced in almost less time than it took me to type that.

The only time marriage ever seemed to be reliable was back in the days of arranged marriages, wherupon the end of the union would result in jail time.

There is no such thing as the sanctity of marriage, unless maybe if you're Amish.

interviewing racial profiles
A very popular thing, for those interviewing those opposed to gay marriage, is finding people that aren't caucasian and most often are in an interracial union. Certainly in the United States, where at various points certain ethnic groups were not allowed to marry others. Not all of those became legal at the same time either. I think Latin and Caucasian happened before Asian and Caucasian was allowed and I'm fairly sure that Black and Caucasian was made legal last of all the other variations, excluding the unions that did not have Caucasians in them...

...which I don't know if much of anyone ever raised an eyebrow at.

The point is that people ooposed to gay marriage seek out interracial couples or people of a so called minority group because, clearly, if they are also against gay marriage that's just another nail in the coffin.

I find it disgusting. Not only the act of doing it in the first place but also that those who know the stigma of prejudice and not having the same rights as everyone else also lording it over another group that wants the same rights that everybody else has. It's just not fair.

For those that don't know me, 2 things: I'm straight and I figure they have just as much right to be potentially miserable like everybody else.
Post A Comment | Flag Link

my journal
January 2015