Watching the Matrix. Eating stuffing. Life’s good. Ooh, here’s the sexy bit.
This was written to me a couple of nights ago:
“Was reading some of your journal. Interesting. but for argument.
Do ya think that maybe Bush won because of not budging a whole lot on what he believes. Regarding religion,war, freedom.
Why is “Gay” such a big deal? Who cares. If major exceptions can be made say for gay people with regards to our laws, which are based in a moral belief most of the time, why not just make exceptions for everybody with a little different sexual orientation? How about the people who like to sleep with little children? Hey, not all of us do it. But after all, they are people too. There are over ten of them in my neighborhood. I viewed one of them just as a “Person” until I found out. They were or maybe were born that way. Who knows?
Now, the only reason we view that as wrong is because the society we live in has said it is wrong. Our parents taught us that, but that really doesn’t make it wrong. So, we should try it?
This is how I ended up responding:
I actually DO respect Bush for not budging from his views. He’s stated a lot of things, and he’s stuck by them. That’s one of those things that I’ve always been impressed with, and it sucked voting for Kerry, who on that front especially, I have absolutely no respect for. It’s difficult for me, because I feel like I could even agree with a lot of things that Bush has done, but I feel that he’s really been disingenuous with the reasons behind his actions.
But – I think America was created with the idea that the government was going to place a couple of laws in place that say “don’t hurt anybody” and enforce that – things like traffic laws and safety requirements, and on a larger scale, child protection, education, and anti-trust laws. some more far-reaching than others.. But then after making sure the populace isn’t out there eating one another, the government is supposed to sort of stay out of the way. leaving more “opinion” based things to the states. It’s there to protect the United States of America , and through that, protect people – their Lives, their freedoms, their ideals.
I think that the gay marriage ban (and that’s what it is, it’s not fighting a guarantee of different rights for gay marriages, but a guarantee of equal rights under the law) is something that CAN’T be placed on the national level. Until you can find enough of a sociological study that proves that a male/male or female/female family unit creates a more harmful environment for any adopted offspring than so many of the “traditional” dysfunctional families out there, I don’t think you can prove that gay marriage is genuinely detrimental to American society (any more than the broken homes and broken families created by our 50% and climbing divorce rate). I feel that if you COULD prove that, you might have a leg to stand on, but even then, I’d feel that that falls more under adoption law – that a same-sex couple wouldn’t be able to adopt a child. but I still don’t see where this affects who should marry who.
Bush may be very strong in his sense of morality, but he’s seeking to push that sense of morality on to others, and indeed, with a 51% majority of the country, he’s just about capable of forcing that down everyone’s throat. The difference between his platform and the Democratic platform has ALWAYS been the difference between totalitarianism and democracy. Bush is seeking to place a “Father knows best” mentality over America – seeking to say “this is what I believe, and once I put it into law, this is what you ALL will Live by” where as the more democratic approach (little “d”) states that “this is what I believe, but what we ALL can agree on is what is put into law”. Bush can be as Christian as he likes, but in a country built on religious freedoms, he shouldn’t be allowed to force it on the rest of us.
Now, the problem I have with the gay marriage ban is that it seems to be totally based on religion. Ideally, that’s maybe all that SHOULD affect marriage and perhaps once upon a time marriage WAS about a religious binding of two individuals. Unfortunately, marriage is no longer simply about religion and Love – it’s about tax breaks, politics, retirement plans and inheritance. On that level, the religious side of it drops out, and if it’s no longer a religious institution, religious reasonings can no longer be used to regulate it.
In reality, most marriages now fail and people go into them knowing that they can back out, that they can get divorces or mistresses or money or all at the end of their trial period. There is very little care for “under the eyes of God” or “till death do we part”, but it IS a way of insuring that your money is inherited the way you want it to be, that FAMILIES receive tax-breaks rather than punishments for staying solid units. Marriage is a way of getting a form of legally recognized solidarity. Insurance for your partner, and also assurance that your partner is genuine. It’s a contract.
On a religious front, churches are where it should be banned – if a Catholic church feels that same-sex marriage is a sin in the eyes of God, than a Catholic church bloody well shouldn’t marry same-sex couples. Of course, if people were being true to their religion, and not just seeking a pretty place to get married, then Catholics wouldn’t have that problem, because no TRUE Catholic would ever contemplate getting married to a same-sex partner. “Same-sex unions”, if they truly gave the same rights, should certainly exist, but at the moment there is a stigma to getting partnered that way, and I feel that someone who gets partnered by a justice of the peace in a court of law should get the same rights and respect (and even pomp and ceremony) as someone who is married by a preacher in a stained-glass cathedral. I think Bush is even stating (though very quietly) that the law ought to set aside provisions for “unions”. but the key is the WORD “marriage”. There’s so much baggage with that term. If a church won’t marry a same-sex couple, fine. But Bush, as president of the United States, has no right to define American religious policy, and the law has no right to regulate based simply on the principle of religion.
As for comparing same-sex couples to having sex with children – the idea here is that you’ve got two consenting adults in one circumstance, and in the other – well, kids can consent to all sorts of things, but we’ve agreed somewhere along the line that the “age of consent” is 18. I don’t know that anyone argues with that except 13-17 year-olds. We’ve agreed that kids under the age of 18 don’t necessarily know what’s good for them, and that kids under the age of consent are almost effectively the property of their parents. So comparing same-sex marriage to pedophilia I don’t think is really right. It’s like saying. “well, people have sex when their MARRIED, so why can’t you just rape’m?” – they are two totally different things, with the key being CONSENT.
The comparison between homosexuality and pedophilia is something that is really highlighted in mass media, and is one of the more idiotic (and harmful) perpetuations of negative publicity on the homosexual Lifestyle. I don’t think the two should be compared at all. Sex with a same-sex consenting adult and sex with an underage partner is not at all synonymous, and whether or not this is being perpetrated by a same-sex or opposite sex criminal is immaterial. It’s still rap
Sitting at Amy’s, typing, setting up a little temporary studio-space for myself. Downstairs, Heather and Amy are practicing for Heather’s solo show at Caribou. The sounds that float up are delicious.
