Friday, April 24, 2009


In our fair state, gay marriage has been brought to legislation. The local newspaper ran a story on it. There were many comments posted, and I happened to feel the need to blather on...
By the end of the day, there were over 120 posts, several of them mine.
Here's my stand.

I think this is where biology trumps theology. This is where our biochemistry is saying "The world is overpopulated and cannot sustain the people we have, so we need to stop breeding!" Or maybe it's God's cruel joke to all you Bible thumping hypocrites, and He is saying "I have too many children to take care of, so I will make a certain percentage of my children love each other, even though they may be of the same (M/M, F/F), so they don't make more, but to take care of the ones I have." I would much rather have two people who love and care about each other taking care of a child than two people who hate each other fighting over whose weekend it is to take care said offspring. Just because a "marriage" (the ceremony of commitment between two people who love and care for each other) is allowed to take place, doesn't mean that it degrades the marriage to my husband. That would be like saying "Anyone who has an online bachelor's degree is degrading to the bachelor's degree that I have". The piece of paper is the same, the amount of time, effort and work is the same, so why is the outcome different? It's not. So live and let live, and quit whining about how "marriage" is between a man and a woman, and that it's so we can procreate. If you can't take care of a dog (cat, any animal) why should you be breeding? How many kids out there are in foster care because their parents don't give a hoot where they are or what they're doing because they are too busy boinkin' their latest lust? How many kids are abused and not reported? How many go hungry because the parents can't take care of them? How many are sexually assaulted by family members because they're too scared to "come out of the closet" so they keep it in the family? The couples that I know who have conceived through invitro fertilization, who take the time to go to parenting classes, who spend time with their children have, love their children very much. Are you Bible-Thumpers going to say that because a man and a woman can't conceive naturally that they shouldn't have science help them out? Some will, I know, but some won't! So why are you going to sit there and complain when two women who love each other go to a sperm bank and do invitro? It's not like it's a "WHOOPS! The condom broke!" or " pills failed"! They are consciously making a decision to take care of another life, unlike some people who breed like rabbits and pump kids out so they can get an extra paycheck. Many people have said to me "Oh, you'll understand when you have kids" And I have replied "The only kids I will ever have will have four legs and fur" and that drew chuckles and rolling of the eyes, but it seems like everyone EXPECTS couples to have kids, and when they don't, its "why not?" And my husband and I are happily married. And everyone thinks we're weird because we've made the decision not to have children. Where does it say in any written law that couples are expected (other than socially) and must raise 2.5 kids, and be constantly strapped for cash? Oh, RIIIGHT... NO WHERE! So stop complaining that working men and women want the same rights that working men and women have. It shouldn't even be an issue. It's discrimination, and an abomination to the freedom to choose who you spend the rest of your life with
No one seemed interested in responding, so I wrote to that effect

One responded with:
M: Perhaps people here didn't care to read an epic-length dissertation that covers a multitude of issues. Most posters address one point at a time and use the responses to adjust their positions. If other points are needed, those are addressed in subsequent posts. It keeps the discussions more direct.
I responded with:
All the questions posed go back to the same point. There is no logical reason for heterosexuals to stand back and point fingers at homosexual people for wanting EQUALITY, aside from fear. Fear stems from the unknown and perceived danger that homosexuals pose a threat to the heterosexual way of life.
People retorted with defining marriage by website "x" and saying it is against God's will for gays and lesbians to marry.
I responded with:
Were we to believe everything that dictionaries and encyclopaedias define *currently defined language* and willing to accept what they say is the unbendable, undeniable, unchallengable, then we would still believe that the world is flat (Fear of the unknown), that the Earth is the center of the Universe (Fear of the New), and women who float are, indeed, witches (Fear of that which we do not understand) who need to be stoned or tied to the largest boulder and rolled down the highest hill in town. THEREFORE: The definition that was submitted as gospel by Rusty according to some website states: 4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other IN THE MANNER of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage, can be extrapolated into defining that, yes, 2 men or 2 women can be married, but currently, without legal sanction. What is before the legislature is to change the "Without Legal Sanction".
People began attacking me with "Well, if you're ok with gays marrying, then you are ok with polygamists and poly amorists"
To which I responded with:
The definition is "a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other IN THE MANNER of a husband and wife" The point is that two people can LOVE each other, and it cannot be a bond between three people. If you truly love someone, they are your soulmate, your ONLY true love, the one who COMPLETES you, then you have nothing left to give to anyone else in the same manner. If you do, then you need to have a discussion with your partner, because they clearly are not meeting your needs, and if given ample opportunity, a person who is not adequately having their needs met will find some way. (And yes, I am female, and have met my soulmate, and I love him with all of my heart).
Which received the "Can we form a committee to change a word?"
A quick research on Merriam-Webster (A dictionary I hold with authority) excavated:
Per Merriam-Webster Online, To decide which words to include in the dictionary and to determine what they mean, Merriam-Webster editors study the language as it's used. They carefully monitor which words people use most often and how they use them. Each day most Merriam-Webster editors devote an hour or two to reading a cross section of published material, including books, newspapers, magazines, and electronic publications; in our office this activity is called "reading and marking." The editors scour the texts in search of new words, new usages of existing words, variant spellings, and inflected forms—in short, anything that might help in deciding if a word belongs in the dictionary, understanding what it means, and determining typical usage. Any word of interest is marked, along with surrounding context that offers insight into its form and use. It is the definer's job to determine which existing entries can remain essentially unchanged, which entries need to be revised, which entries can be dropped, and which new entries should be added. In each case, the definer decides on the best course of action by reading through the citations and using the evidence in them to adjust entries or create new ones.
People then tried to argue that because a definition was lower on the list that it wasn't accurate.
I am just so fed up with so many people saying "it's a choice, it's not natural, it's sin." and that they shove their agenda down our throat. It's none of the above. Does anyone hear "EEEEEEEWWWWWWWW!" when seeing a man and woman kiss and hold hands in public? No? Then why should we not extend the same when seeing two men or two women kiss and hold hands! Put yourself in their shoes and think about the daily discrimination they face, and then when they stand up for themselves, they're "Shoving their agenda down our throats?"

No comments: