On November 5th 2008, Proposition 8 was subject to a referendum by the people of California and was, to the astonishment and dismay of many, approved by a 52.2 to 48.8 percent margin. In it, a denigrating reality was forcefully shoved down the throats of the gay community: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” This “proposition” has been just one of the many successful endeavors of neo-conservatives, religious fundamentalists and fearful, homophobic citizens to further stigmatize the monogamous relationships of couples of the same sex. Rather then coddle them, dissenters around the nation continue to do everything in their power to throttle them, slowly, but surely, relinquishing them of any lingering civil liberties that they can lay claim to. To some this a justified law which derives its legitimacy from the universal truths of morality, aimed at controlling, if not eradicating, the disdainful acts of the deviant hordes. To others, however, it is a subjective, case-by-case perception of morality, belonging to the now clear majority of California, being forced on those people who “unfortunately” do not share their penchant for members of the opposite sex. Could this Proposition really just be an indecent proposal?
Before addressing Proposition 8 any further, it is dire to identify the array of groups who have instigated all the problems, as well delve head first into the pervading arguments against gay marriage. First, and foremost, are the neo-conservatives, masquerading as devout Christians, who, rather than standing up for their own personal convictions, simply act out Newton’s Third Law of Motion, “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction,” in the political world, changing it to, “For every Liberal action there is an equal but opposite conservative reaction. They are voluntary slaves to every whim of the left and are as predictable as Sean Hannity associating Barrack Obama to Bill Ayers, “The unrepentant Terrorist, who said on 9/11 he didn’t set enough bombs,” every night at 9pm on Fox News. They make no compelling case other than the cliché, “It distorts the accepted notion of marriage” As will later demonstrated, this is a tenuous argument because changing the definition of marriage is not necessarily a bad thing.
The other not-so-gregarious group to the homosexuals are the religious fundamentalists, wagging their fingers at the both “detestable and abominable” behavior of the black sheep of their personal God. It is their outright hypocrisy and overbearing self-righteousness that submerges society under a sea of indignant excoriation and judgment. For Christians-since this is the religion I am amply knowledgeable in- the Old Testament is cited as the common place for repudiation of homosexuality by God’s own words: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination” (Leviticus 18:22). Is this the same Old Testament God who, when asked by Moses what to do about a man caught gathering wood on the Sabbath, answered, “This man shall be put to death; let the whole community stone him outside the camp?” (Numbers 15:35). The only thing that should be deemed indignant in today’s society is this group’s endeavors to enforce their obscure catechisms on peoples of other faiths, or worse, on those who do not follow any whatsoever.
The last group, also prevalent amid the aforementioned groups, is the fear- driven, phobia-infested, change-inhibiting homophobic bunch. Their reasoning for being against gay marriage is so flimsy, so pathetic, and so insignificant that it isn’t even worth addressing. However, because so many are plagued with this unwarranted fear of those who “despicably” love people of the same sex, it must be dealt with at once. What do you fear? Do you think that by rescinding their previously granted right of exchanging nuptial vows in the presence of a judge, you are somehow eliminating the homosexual seed out of society for good? Think again. You have only successfully stonewalled the inevitable and undeniable: Gays are here to stay; they will not be kept at bay. Your ludicrous fears only demonstrate your own insecurities, as well as your looming feelings of inadequacy in a doleful, barren existence.
The three aforementioned groups do, however, coincide in their self-proclaimed compelling points against gay marriage. They say, if we condone it, we are leading society down a slippery slope: it can lead to legalizing pedophile relationships with children or relationships between humans and animals. However, the deluded individuals, who contrived these deliberately-misconstruing assessments, know fully well that these types of relationships would not be acceptable on the grounds that both parties are not consenting. Children are too young and irrational to consent, and animals cannot reason on the level of human beings, thus making both cases an example of perverted and abusive relationships, as opposed to consensual, monogamous ones. Also, they speculate that children, who are breed in this type of marriage, will be the unfortunate recipients of life-altering heckling at school: when they have to bring their parents to school. However, it is ironic, and even distasteful, to utilize such an idiotic excuse to prevent same sex weddings; a form of reasoning that was offered to preclude blacks and whites from marrying during our horrific, racist-oriented past. This “distortion and redefiniton” of marriage rectified audacious injustices of the past, making everyone truly equal… Aren’t the struggles of the gays of today an allusion to the afflictions that dogged the blacks in the past? Isn’t their current struggle against discrimination the same one that most of society fought to preserve during the 1950’s, but only now frown upon? Do you really want to perpetuate the wrongs of the past?
In short, Proposition 8 is the quelling of the voices of justice, reflecting the inability of man to accept his fellow neighbor. Whether you supported the measure, or its outspoken advocates, on religious, political, or fear-driven grounds, you must realize that it is only a matter of time until their dream, your dreadful nightmare, becomes a permanently-anchored reality in America. But for now, the Indecent Proposal of denying equal treatment for homosexuals hinders, as well as stifles, the cohesiveness of a nation in dire need of tolerance and respect.
“You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.”-Abraham Lincoln
11 Comments
hey louis. thanks for sending me this link to your blog. I really enjoyed reading it. It made so much sense to. Whether they get married doesn’t directly have anything to do with us, and out of all the liberal ideas out there, this is definitely the one that makes the most sense. It is very similar as you said at my house over the summer, to women’s rights and black rights years earlier. I usually, as you know am a hard-core FoxNews fan (especially Bill O’Reilly & Laura Ingraham), but I do understand and believe what Keith Olberman is saying. Although, I know what the bible says, because there is a separation between church and state, we don’t have a right to make laws against gay marriage based on Biblical teachings like that. Although, I am not going to crusade for it, I do understand were you are coming from. It does make sense.
Awesome post buddy! Keep making more! Hope to see you on Saturday.
-Steve
1. You didn’t prove hypocrisy. You cited 2 things in the bible that do not involve hypocrisy. The stoning is meant at the time of breaking Canaan law during rural times.
2. Wasn’t it Bill Clinton, a democrat/liberal who didn’t oppose but sign in to law the Defense of Marriage Act that stated the government won’t recognize same sex marriages?
3. As to religion…You didn’t mention the part that religious leaders in Canada, a country that legalized same-sex marriage, have been tried and convicted of discrimination for preaching their religious beliefs against same-sex marriage, or anyone who does not believe in same-sex marriage could be sued if they do not treat the couple to the same equality as they would heterosexual couples. Ex. Catering halls, adoption services, DJ SERVICES.
For instance, the Arabic deli that I get my sandwich from does not sell pork based on their religious grounds; are they discriminating against my desire for bacon? No. I accept it, I go on.
(but if i don’t want to dj a same-sex wedding because I have certain religious views, they can sue me)
Don’t get my comments as an attack on your views. I am for civil unions and granting the somewhat 1,200+ legal rights that they should be entitled to. I do not however, believe that my views should be hypocritical (against it in church, for it in the street).
Gabe, let’s delve into each comment you made:
First, I am not a cynic on religion but did successfully point out that many religious zealots quote the obscure texts of the old testament to favor their subjective beliefs on homosexual marriage, referencing books like Leviticus to substantiate their claims, while looking over books like Numbers that demonstrate that not everything which is in the bible can be literally interpreted. In this manner, they are hypocrites because they categorically deny that their God of love would ever, under any circumstances approve of killing another human being in cold blood, even if it would be because he broke the “Canaan Law,” but have no discrepancy with the notion that God deems it “detestable” for a man to lie with another man, even if they do so in act of love.
Second, yes, Bill Clinton defended the “accepted” definition of marriage. His endeavors during the nineties, however, have absolutely nothing to do with what happened in California. If you read the polls, you will see that the one’s who tilted the vote in favor of Proposition 8 where conservative republicans and “church goers.” (sometimes they are the same thing).
Third, I was not aware of that going on in Canada; however, I do not clearly see the point your trying to make. Staunch religious fundamentalist, Pastor Rick Warren, led the religious movement in California, which did its absolute best to see it that Proposition 8 passed, and he has not been sued by any homosexual individual. The point I want to perpetuate is that those who want to repeal Proposition 8 are not advocating the throttling of religious congregations, but simply the undoing of an unfair and unjust attempt to oppress them and as well as enforce personal religious convictions on them. Last I checked, there was supposed to be a separation of church and state pervading in American today; So please, let us be consistent, rather than over blaringly fickle..
Personally, I don’t feel too strongly either way on this issue. I am very conservative on many important issues, but this issue, I can at least understand why this idea would at least make sense, because I do understand this point of view. Especially because many people agree that can be born gay, and can’t change it. In that case, it’s tough to blame them for wanting to get married.
Yes, there should be a separation of church and state, but for that to be, millions of Americans would have to be contradicting themselves based on law versus their religion. Just because law says something is right does not make it right. For instance, Nazi soldiers were put in jail for actions that were considered immoral although they were told to do so. Or, in our 21st century society, soldiers have to make moral decisions based on their assigned objectives. If they carry out objectives that are considered immoral, they can be jailed.
The point I want to make is:
although there is a separation of church and state, our morals may stem from religious backgrounds. These morals help us to make judgments in every day life as a citizen.
As to what is going on in Canada, google this phrase because I can not export the source from the Universities database
“Rein in rights commissions on speech law, but don’t disband them; The overzealous commissions should be controlled by changing law”
As for businesses who get sued because they don’t equalize homosexuality on the basis of not providing services for them or because of religious beliefs, check out E-harmony or Certain adoption services that are highly christian.
As e-harmony goes, they do not provide “women seeking women” or “man seeking man” section, therefore they are seen as discriminatory. BUT they just don’t provide a service, how is that discriminatory? There are certain women gyms like “Lucille roberts” that are all women, are they discriminating men or do they just provide a service only for women? Like i said before about the deli, are they discriminating my love for bacon?
^^^
I stumbled upon this while searching for sources for my paper on equality.
“The fact is that very few Americans are really concerned with who is living with whom and what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms. Honestly, we cringe when thinking about our parents dalliances; we are not spending time conjuring up visions of our neighbors. What people are concerned with is what behavior government sanctions in their name.
The opposition to homosexual marriage is not an opposition to the idea of the universality of love, but a rejection of the idea that the state, and by extension, society must validate every loving relationship as equal.
If marriage is simply about coupling-sex and love and nothing more-then upon what basis would California or any other state deny “marriage equality” to those that favor polygamous relationships? Understand that I am not of the opinion that homosexual marriage will lead us down the slippery slope to bestiality or child abuse. However, I do think it a fair question to ask those demanding “marriage equality” what their rationale is for refusing state sanction of those lifestyles even they disagree with. Why do the same romantic arguments not apply to those wishing to marry multiple partners? Does anyone seriously contend that human beings are incapable of loving more than one person at a time? We have already decided that the actual makeup of the family unit is unimportant so why not have three parents? Certainly children will benefit from three times as much love and attention. Or do we reject such arguments because we recognize that ultimately the institution of marriage must be about more than love and more than equal access to government benefits. And then, can’t we finally agree that society has a right, even a duty, to recognize the differences in certain human relationships and refuse validation of those it finds counter to its grander ideals?” -Joseph Phillips
All right, a lot was said, but let me tackle your second batch of refutations to my blog, one by one:
First, you site Nazi soldiers caught after World War II to warrant your assessment that sometimes the law is not right and that it “contradicts” religion in certain instances. However, it is important to note that these ‘laws, which Hitler forced his soldiers, not all, to carry out, such as exterminating the Jewish people, are examples of audacious laws implemented by sick, unjust governments which oppress its minorities; sounds familiar, no? Moreover, it is absurd to equate the mass killing of an entire race to couples begging for the same rights “monogamous,” heterosexual couples do. Homosexuality is a preference of people of your same sex that does not harm anyone, or shed any blood, lest you continue to oppress them like the despicable Nazi Germany, which you mentioned. Also, it is very vainglorious of anyone to assume, or even subtly imply, that people who are not stalwart followers of a determined religion have no sense of “these morals” that “help us to make judgments in every life as a citizen.” It is condescends against those who have chosen the religion of believing in no religion.
Second, with regards to Canada, I, once again, fail to see your resonating point; however, I will reiterate that people pushing for the rescinding of proposition 8 are not saying that their next target are religious figures who speak ill of them at the pulpit every Sunday; this, even the most levelheaded person, would concede as being the right of the pastor or priest of the church: to speak according to their interpreted beliefs of their holy book, or based on the catechisms of their structured religion/denomination.
Third, I don’t understand how you deviate from the desire of gays to make marriage legal for all couples, discriminating no one, to E-harmomny and your unquestionable love for bacon , but I will address it nevertheless. You wrongfully attempt to equate the Arab man refusing to sell you pork and the government not providing gay marriage for homosexuals. The Arab man, as a distributor and Islam practitioner, whose religion places stigmas on pigs, has the legal right to pick what it is he will sell to his consumers, as well as refuse service to ANYONE he wishes; although his refusal to serve a particular group of people or serve a genre of food, due to his religions beliefs, may not necessarily bring him many customers and may leave him open to being sued, it is his right under the law to do so. The government on the other hand, because it is ideally supposed to be unbiased in all areas, including religion (separation of church and state), race, creed, and sexual preference, does not have the same right to make marriage an exclusive privilege for heterosexuals on the grounds that some people perceive this action as right because their religion tells them it is; this is both deplorable and unacceptable. E-Harmony, with its exclusive services for heterosexuals, could very well be forced to defend itself in court against a homosexual, who thinks they should extend their services to the gay community, but this once again misses my main point that a business is self-governing. This means it can determine for itself what it will or will not do, or who it will or will not serve. The government does not have this right; they must be fair to all.
Fourth, on your last paragraph, which begins, “the opposition to homosexual marriage is not an opposition to the idea of the universality of love, but a rejection of the idea that the state, and by extension, society must validate every loving relationship as equal,” you say you aren’t advocating a slippery slope argument but you succeed solely in adding another one to the already abundant array pervasive in all gay marriage debates. You essentially speculate that, by legalizing their right to wed, we would therefore give leeway to polygamous relationships. But this is a misleading hypothesis. One, no one needs religion or any prevalent predispositions to reason that a polygamous relationship obscures “love” and hinders the very foundation of a two person relationship. I’m not one to debate the philosophical notion of love, but it can be agreed by most reasoning people that that is not what marriage is about. To have more than one spouse, thereby having sexual relationships with more than one person at a time, stifles the concepts of trust and fidelity: concepts that are the corner stone of marriage. And two, the ramifications of sanctioning polygamy puts a economic burden on the government to provide for multiple spouses and family members, who have no inherent right to be included under the marriage laws. Polygamy, your greatest endeavor at illustrating the slippery slope argument, fails to encompass what marriage is supposed to be about: the universal notion of relationship love upheld by trust, dependability, and fidelity, encased in the mutuality of two individuals. Yes, you can love more than one person in your family. But no, you do not love the person, who you would have be one of many spouses of yours, or vice versa. This is not love; it is a complete and utter distortion of it. It is this unfortunate misrepresentation, along with the “refusal of the validation of those (rights) it finds counter to grander ideals,” what continues to inculcate tenuous reasons for oppressing their fellow man, into the minds of mainstream America.
Thank you for completing my paper. I thought if I play devils advocate you would respond accordingly.
Thank you my friend, I hope I get that A.
lol I hate you man
Interesting outlook on proposition 8. However you fail on the following premises:
First, you never address the argument that gay couples should has civil unions, but it should not have the title of marriage. Civil Unions allow the same rights, e.g. right to visit your partner in the hospital.
Second, the idea of a slippery slope is still valid because in some cases it is consented. Thus they should have protection under the 14th Amendment.
I love you, and no we are not a gay couple.