Tuesday, December 9

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

Not if you called them stench blossoms


i am really sick of the argument that anyone who is against gay marriage is automatically hateful, and/or evil, and/or stupid. People do not have to be any of those things to be against gay marriage. It seems to me that the people who carry around the most hate are in fact supporters of gay marriage, who can't stand those opposed to them. And i say that as a supporter of gay marriage (although i am a detractor of supporters of gay marriage.) I think it may be fair to say that the most hateful, and angry people are against gay marriage, they may be farther to the extreme, but most people against gay marriage are neither hateful nor angry, while it seems that virtually everyone in favor of gay marriage is. Would there be huge protests all over the country if the vote had gone the other way? i doubt it. Let's not forget that in california they have civil unions, which have virtually (if not all) the same legal rights as marriages, just without the name marriage. So they are willing to grant gay couples all the same rights and everything is equal, just you call what you have a civil union instead of a marriage, and that makes them hateful and bigoted? I don't think that is hateful or bigoted in anyway, is just a matter of semantics, and gay people should get over themselves. As i believe i mentioned earlier in this blog, polygamy is still illegal in many areas (all?), and they would be thrilled to be celebrated or even tolerated the way gays are throughout america. I remember one specific example where a guy didn't even marry either of the girls he was living with (or maybe he married one) but the police declared that he had been living with both of them long enough to have commonlaw marriages with both of them, and thus was practicing polygamy and sentenced to 10 years in jail (i don't remember the actual sentence.) Here's somebody who is actually just minding his own business, not asking for anything from the government except to be left to his own family, and his own loved ones, and he can't get that. Meanwhile gay people are protesting and rioting of the distinction between using the word marriage, or civil unions.

Also this particular clip implies that supporting gay marriage will help the economy, this is simply preposterous. The claim is that all the new gay weddings, and all the money they will be spending will help the economy. This argument makes no sense, what so ever. So if they can't get married gays won't every spend their money, they'll just bury it under their porch? I don't think there is even any clear evidence that we want people spending more money, america has been saving less and less money, and it is entirely possible that a lack of savings (which means less money for investments) is the biggest problem in the states right now. The argument for spending money to encourage the economy, or saving money and investing it to encourage the economy, i don't really remember much about. I think there is probably a happy medium someplace, but i'm sure the US is near the bottom in savings of industrialized nations.

The only way that what they suggest could possibly be true, is if it draws wealthy gays, and their money, from other states in the union to the state that has passed gay marriage legislation. In which case what they are actually advocated is gay marriage licences in their state, but no other states, in order to lure the gays to their state.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

I always thought that marriage per se was the religious ceremony and that anything else was a civil union, the gay community is pretty diverse though, not all of them are out there protesting and by and large rioting might be too strong a word, but yeah, I don't see the point in arguing over semantics when the crux of the matter is equal rights in recognition of a relationship. I am thus in full support of civil unions being extended to the gay community but as for marriage as a word I might be a little slow but still I always thought that was the religious thing

And that's absurd about that guy getting a prison sentence, if everyone in the situation were willing participants and no laws were being broken (i.e. no legal marriage had taken place) the de facto status being used to charge someone with polygamy is just downright fucking absurd

11:26 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home