Thursday, January 22, 2009

Blog For Choice Day 2009


You know how I feel about that one already. So I'm gonna bring up another topic that's in the same spirit: gay marriage.

President Obama is all for gay people gettin' together. Civil unions, fine, he says. He has said, though, that his religion says marriage is between a man and a woman, so he's personally against gay marriage. He does say that he'll leave the issue of gay marriage up to each state, but that's not good enough for me.

This is why I'd never subscribe to any religion. No two people's opinions could every be the exact same on every single topic. Even if there was a religion that shared my opinions on 99.9 percent of all topics, as soon as they say, "you can't do that...", well, that's when I say "see ya later." I think George Carlin said it best when he said all religions should have one rule: "hats optional." In other words, if I can't do what I want, I'm just not gonna join your group, though everyone has the right to join whatever group they want.

But back to Barrack--he says, "Giving [gay people] a set of basic rights would allow them to experience their relationship and live their lives in a way that doesn't cause discrimination." Yet he's opposed to gay marriage. How is that not discrimination?

Here's what I really don't get: People that only want to see marriage between a man and a woman seem to have no problem with arranged marriages, mail-order brides, marriages for the purpose of getting someone into the country, marriages based on money alone, or any other kind of completely loveless marriages. Half the people in this country getting married end up divorced, and those are only the people who admit to not being happy in their marriage. So how is any of those things better than two men or two women who are totally in love with each other spending their entire lives together? If you're gonna put limits on marriage, try limiting it to people who really love each other, no matter what their sex happens to be. If it's such a sacred thing, isn't that what's really important?

I think what it comes down to is that some people are just disgusted by the thought of people having sex in a way that doesn't appeal to them. People hear "gay" and they immediately think "gay sex," as if the defining characteristic of every gay person is which gender they're attracted to. If they hear someone's straight, they think, "Okay, just your average person who shops at the mall and works in the yard and gets pissed when other drivers cut them off." If they hear someone's gay, however, they think, "Oh, he enjoys other mens' anuses."

But gay people and straight people are both people. Remember that. They have differences just like two straight people might root for a different baseball team. And unless that team is the New York Yankees, they deserve the same rights as anyone else. Hey--how about we stop letting Yankee fans marry! If we stop them from breeding, maybe we could make them extinct by next century.

Okay, so, Obama, get your straight ass in gear and tell everyone that all people have the same rights. Imagine if one of your daughters came up to you and said, Dad, I'm in love, and I want your blessing to get married. And that other person was a woman. You are the president. You're gonna tell her she can't get married? "Sorry, Malia, I change the rules, I'm not the president." Yes you are. Yes you can.

Here's that Carlin clip:

Yeah, I don't get the instantaneously sexually starved lunatic connection with being gay. Same with the whole, "OMG dude, don't mind fuck me." Since when do straight people think they're so desirable? Also, this only applies to gay men since girl on girl is totally acceptable to the majority of anti-gay American men. It also makes the lesbian relationship not seem as serious as a gay man's relationship. Do you get that feeling too?
Straight guys like to watch to straight-looking girly girls together, but if two butch-looking women who looked nothing like what's considered "attractive" to the American ad execs went up to them and said "sign this petition to allow us to marry," they'd probably be like, "fuck off, dykes." And then they'd go and watch videos of girls with fake boobs and fake blond hair having fake sex with each other.

I've been meaning to blog about all this, too--our society is getting more male-dominated instead of things evening out.
One of my biggest pet peeves is when people say that by "allowing" civil unions they're "basically letting them get married." I know a deeply religious gay couple who uprooted themselves from Virginia to move to Massachusetts so they could get married. Civil unions are not marriage, people.

And thank you for the girly-girl/butch point. It's ridiculous how much people discriminate based on appearance, even when they aren't looking directly for sex. Stereotypically good-looking people always seem to have a leg up.

Hi, by the way. I'm a long-time reader who's probably commented once or twice, I dunno.
Cool, welcome to the "commented more than once or twice club!"

About appearances--every time there's some new song by some new artist that's all over the place, you see the person, and they're just perfect. There are some people who could probably just sing any song and they'd become popular just because they look the part. Where are the ugly pop stars???? (They aren't allowed to exist!)
George Carlin was so brilliant. I miss him.

Thanks for the great post, Jere. What I have never understood is when straight people say that they are "threatened" by gay marriage. As a straight woman, I would really appreciate someone clearing this up for me so I can start being fearful of all the gay people who want to get married.

Also - I have always stated: If I can find a religion that isn't sexist, homophobic or teaches me to hate other people-I'll join it.

So far the Unitarians have come the closest.
You and I are eerily similar in views on religion and gay marriage. I mean Twilight-Zone-spooky similar.
I mean, c'mon now. Threatened? Holy shit. Shouldn't they be more threatend by the staggering divorce rate among their fellow heteros and the incredibly huge number of kids growing up in hate-filled environments? Almost every gay couple I know, and there are a number of them, have shown a great commitment to one another. Otherwise they wouldn't go through what most of society puts them through in order to continue the relationship.
Nothing like listening to a guy whose wife left him because he was cheating on her and is now suing him because he won't pay the child support whine about the devaluation of the sanctity of marriage.
And I get your point on religion, I really do. That reasoning is exactly why I considered myself a devout aetheist for a long time. I then decided agnostic would be more accurate, and have since taken a liking to Judaism. But only because, at least in the reform circle of Judaism, I have found that acceptance and tolerance are expected, and the questioning of accepted theology is not only encouraged, it is practically mandated.
And a civil union is NOT a marriage, dammit!
That's just weak.

Post a Comment

If you're "anonymous," please leave a name, even if it's a fake one, for differentiation purposes.

If you're having trouble commenting, try signing in to whatever account you're using first, then come back here once you're signed in.

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

My Photo
Location: Rhode Island, United States