Monday, June 16, 2008

What you dont believe in still matters

I am amazed at how often people are unable to look at the big picture. Its not that I care that their world revolves around them -- that is how it should be. If you are not the most important person in your world then there definitely is a problem. The issue I have is the inability to see that other folks' worlds revolve around them as well. And as long as you are not aiming guns at each other (or passing laws doing so) then it just doesnt matter what the other folk do.

I just dont see why folks get so worked up over gay marriage. (Well, I guess I know why, but lets assume I dont at this juncture.) For the purpose of this rant, and for full disclosure, I should mention I am a heterosexual white male. Not because it should matter, because it shouldnt.

Why are people gay

Before we delve into the whole marriage thing, I think its appropriate to discuss why people are gay in the first place. I must state up front: I am not a psychologist or a biologist or really anyone qualified to speak here. In fact, I'd like to list some reasons may or may not even agree with here, just to have a list:

  1. They were born that way. We all have bits and pieces of both sexes floating around in us. We all have both male and female hormones. We all have them in differing levels. Is it remotely possible that some folk just have "too much" or "too little" and waver in the middle of the two distinct sexes?
  2. They have evolved. This is just an offshoot of the one before -- and mentioning the "E" word might just make some of the ultra religious prickle, but I think its a viable possibility still. The world is getting more and more populated. Evolution might be saying "slow down" and making a bunch of folks that are biologically not likely to make babies. Of course, science has really mucked this up if this is the case since it is now possible to make the little critters in test tubes and implant them. (This is also a self-refuting bit. If you can't reproduce, you can't pass on the "can't reproduce" gene.)
  3. They just want to shock people. You know, the Madonna Syndrome. (Not the "holy mother" -- the "trashy singer"). Some folks just thrive on attention, be it negative or positive and shock makes a good attention grabber.
  4. A psychological problem. I know psychology has removed homosexuality as a disorder long ago. But I think it is still possible a trauma could cause an extreme reaction. For example, if her father beat her as a child, a girl might become predisposed to having mistrust for men and would gravitate toward women.
  5. A developmental issue. What if something were missing at a critical stage of development? Improper nutrition, improper role models... hell anything. And they just "missed" some "normal" part of life.
  6. Satan. Okay, I can't disagree with this one enough... but I know there are some that think it, so I list it.
  7. An injury or brain malfunction. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Just that some part of the brain might be injured or malfunctioning or malformed and the "normal" signals are not getting across.
  8. insert reason here. Yes, the catch all. There have to be a thousand other theories.
  9. My theory. I really think we've been going about it all wrong. I think the idea of finding "the reason" is totally the wrong approach. Lets face it. There are millions of gay folk on this planet (except for in Iran, which we know has none.) Isnt it remotely possible that with a million people there might be more than one reason? Isnt it remotely possible that there might be people with multiple reasons? And some with one? And some with reasons we havent even thought of? Its obvious that the reason people are "straight" is "to reproduce" -- but some of us dont reproduce. Are we childless bastards just as "broken"? Maybe. Would you deny us rights for the inability or undesirability of children?

Why people hate them there homos

You will hear multiple reasons for hating gays:

  1. they are out to convert us - And to this I have to think... really? Have you really ever talked to a gay person that wanted to recruit you for their team? And if so, who the hell cares? You can just add this person to the list of "people that are attracted to me that I do not find attractive." You can say no if the ugly outcast girl that never bathes asks you to the prom. Now, I might add it isnt nice to make fun of her -- but its okay to say no.
  2. they are child molesters - I think you should do a little more research. I dont think you will find statistics back you up on that.
  3. ewww. Ick. - Yeah, okay, I see your argument. For any person there are things others do that are icky. So what? I love oysters. I like them raw and slimy. I like the way they almost slither down my throat (followed by a nice cold beer.) I totally understand that lots of people think this is gross. So is that any reason to hate me? Or deny me individual rights? Personally, I dont think so.
  4. they are rampant disease spreaders - You'd better think before you go here. This is a bad road to go down. Especially if you add in that the disease is a punishment from god. If you believe this, and I know some do, you have to take both sides of it. If, for example, AIDS is punishment from god on those awful homos.... then you must also accept that the lowest percentage of AIDS (and other sexually transmitted diseases) is among lesbians. Does that make them god's chosen?
  5. god told me to hate them - Honestly, I think 90% of it boils down to this. The bible clearly calls homosexuality "an abomination" (Lev 18:22-23) and clearly condemns you to hell for being gay (Jude 7, 1 Cor 6:9 and I am sure countless more). But it also clearly commands you to kill homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13) -- and are you really willing to do that? It also has some other wacky ideas like avoiding menstruating women (Leviticus 15:19-30), killing non-believers (2 Chronicles 15:12-13) and oh-my-god avoiding pork. And as I recall, it also talked about forgiveness. I believe it even goes so far as saying "judge not lest you be judged" (which is a particularly offensive phrase, but it works here. More appropriate would be "judge fairly and prepare to be judged by others.") The whole idea of hating gays because you are religious does nothing more than show how irrational your religious beliefs really are.

Mistakes people make in demanding gay rights

I dont mean to pick on the gays here. Because really the issue here applies to every single group of people that wants "X rights." It probably dates back to the origins of our country. The problem was a bunch of really smart guys finally understood individual rights. They finally understood the rights to own ones own life. They understood property rights. And then the smart guys totally misapplied them. If they had only gotten that "individual" meant everybody, we wouldnt have had a problem. But they limited it to white men.

And then instead of correcting the original issue, we have since been trying ever since to apply various rights to various groups -- making the same mistake over and over again. Now first off, groups do not have rights. Individuals have rights. And if you give one group a set of rights while denying another group -- well you missed the concept. And rights dont conflict. If one person's right to health care takes away another person's property to pay for it... well you missed the concept again.

So gays really should not be arguing for gay rights. I know, its what's important to them. I get it. They should be arguing for unified application of individual rights.

It all boils down to marriage

I think the central issue here is gay marriage. Its what sets both sides off. We can argue about "shall not discriminate on the basis of sexual preference" all day long... but discrimination that is based on emotions is stupid. And no matter how hard you try, outlawing stupidity doesnt work. (On the opposite side, discrimination based on rational thought is actually a good thing -- like picking food that is nutritious over food that is full of E. Coli.)

This leads me to ask: what is marriage? I mean, what is it really?

The religious zealots among us will say it is a contract before god where one man and one woman unite in holy matrimony.

But it isnt. First off, this is a secular country. We do not make our laws based on a contract before god. If you, as an individual, would like to enter such a contract with god or the flying spaghetti monster -- you just go right ahead.

Let me let you in on a little clue here: marriage is a business contract. I know, very non-romantic. But that is what it is. Your "wedding ceremony" may be religious. But the "marriage" is atheist. It is without religion. In a "traditional marriage" there is a legally binding contract where two people have a business partnership. There can be contracts on what assets go in and what assets come out. But that is all it is. More often than not, this is a business partnership where the partners are sleeping together -- and you might argue that this is bad for a business partnership. But that is a different topic entirely.

To deny someone the right to enter a business contract based on sexual preference or race or religion -- well that's just a stupid idea. This is the government. They don't get to choose what's a good idea or a bad idea or moral or immoral. In this case, they are nothing more than a big filing cabinet for contracts.

Oh, I know the next argument: It's a slippery slope... next you will have marriages with more than 2 people or people marrying animals. (And yes, I have actually heard this as an "argument".) As for multiple people in a marriage... so what? There can be multiple people in a business contract. There can be corporations of thousands of people. This is not necessarily how I would choose to live, but why does the government get to choose? And as for marriage to Fido, that's just stupid. There is no precedent for contracts with non-humans.

Now if your church does not want to host these weddings -- okay. I know some churches will deny you to marry if the music is not approved. They make all sorts of odd decisions... and its their church. So be it. But that doesnt mean they get to meddle in contract law.

Not in front of the children

And the other issue: Kids. We just are not comfortable with gay people raising children. I say bollocks. Oh, I understand your argument. It is long and convoluted and references all those reasons why you hate gays. But it boils down to this: "I think the gay lifestyle is damaging to children." Really? Other than asking for proof of that statement, I think more importantly you should think long and hard about what is behind it. Are you really willing to say the government has the right to choose what is or isnt an appropriate environment to raise children? Oh, don't give me the crap about child abuse or molestation. Yes, we can agree on some extreme cases that the government may step in.

I have read more than one (in other words many) article depicting how various religions may be damaging to a developing child. Do you really want the government taking away the children raised in a religious environment? Or denying a religious couple (one man and one woman, of course) the right to have children? Is the threat of eternal damnation in fire a "terroristic threat"? Maybe homeland security should get involved.

Get serious. Just because you dont believe the same way doesnt mean its against the law. You can disagree. You can use rational argument (well... some of you can.) But you cant make it illegal. Period.


The important thing I want to get across here... more even that gays should be allowed to marry, get sick of each other, fight, scream, divorce and take them for all they have... The main thing you should get here is that you dont even have to agree with the "gay lifestyle" or "gay agenda". Who cares. Damn them to hell. But it still matters. A whole lot even. The important thing here is individual rights. And as a subtitle: what are you willing for the government to decide? The question isnt about the "sanctity of (straight) marriage". The question is whether the government gets to have a vote at all.

There are loads of "traditional couples" that should not marry. I have been one of those (as has my ex-wife). Should the government have used its wisdom and stepped in and stopped it? Do not try to apply laws to others that you do not want generalized and applied to yourself. You may not believe in it... but it still matters.


LogoGirl said...

Boy - does cobbler make you all introspective?


I think they should be allowed to pay divorce lawyers outrageous sums and the marriage penalty tax just like the rest of us.

The issue why the Govt steps in, IMO, is that corporations don't want to have to cover a whole 'nother set of "partners" under spousal insurance. Right now they don't have to.

Spork In the Eye said...

...another rant entirely... The whole concept that the corporate world could/should cover insurance. Not to get off on another rant, but folks have been duped into
a) thinking they cannot afford insurance
b) thinking they need a whole lot more coverage than they really do (related to a).
c) with ridiculous coverage they flock to the hospitals and stand in line IN FRONT OF ME, gumming up the whole system.