I went and checked out the site expecting the usual. I certainly got that but right up front I saw something that was such a fine example of monumental hypocrisy that I, of course, had to share with all of you.
On the first page, we get their mission statement, which reads as follows.
The American Principles Project is a 501(c)(3) organization dedicated to preserving and propagating the fundamental principles on which our country was founded - universal principles, embracing the notion that we are all, "created equal, endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
At first glance, I think we would all agree with this. But take a look at the first article in their news feed.
A response to a response - The Argument Against Gay Marriage: And Why it Doesn’t Fail
The American Principles Project is a 501(c)(3) organization dedicated to preserving and propagating the fundamental principles on which our country was founded - universal principles, embracing the notion that we are all, "created equal, endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
At first glance, I think we would all agree with this. But take a look at the first article in their news feed.
A response to a response - The Argument Against Gay Marriage: And Why it Doesn’t Fail
Are you fucking kidding me? We are all created equal...have unalienable rights...life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness....UNLESS YOU ARE GAY IN WHICH CASE FUCK OFF!!!
What a load of hypocritical bullshit on a myriad of levels. If they actually believed their mission statement (the Declaration of Independence), they would embrace gay marriage. More troubling, and this is glaringly true of many conservatives these days, is their insistence that the Constitution limits government....except when it comes to things like gay marriage. Then its OK for the federal government to dictate what people do in their private lives.
The ONLY reason why homosexuality is considered a sin is because at the time the Bible was written, Romans were buggering little boys. That is a sin. In fact, it's a criminal act that has somehow translated over the centuries to mean that being gay is a criminal act. But back in those days, there were no Neils and Steves adopting little children from Haiti and operating their little B and B. Our culture has changed...our society has moved...homosexuality isn't a crime, folks.
I don't get it. Why are people so concerned about gay marriage? What do they think is going to happen when it becomes legal?. It's been illegal in most states for the history of our country and the heterosexuals certainly haven't improved it. In fact, it's worse now then it's ever been with the divorce rate being so high.
I don't care if they don't like gay people. That's their right. But to be such a hypocrite about the Constitution. Is it all about fear...AGAIN...with these people?
17 comments:
The entire world has not moved on M as you can plainly see. Even the worst of the Christian world does not wish to execute people for being gay - unlike the religion of peace. Nor was being gay any picnic in the most powerful secular states of the left (USSR, China).
But if you choose to see it as purely a matter of evil right-wing Christians - that is your prerogative. I suspect that even such vaunted deists as Jefferson, Franklin and Paine may have had reservations about 'gay rights'.
Oh, and about the Constitution - where does it mention marriage in there? That falls under state law (10th Amdt) and there really is no Constitutional case to make (as even you might realize if you were to recall that you were quoting the DoI).
It wasn't even 50 years ago that performing a homosexual act, even in the privacy of your home, subjected you to prosecution by the state. From that to not being able to have the state recognize your marriage is slow progress... relative to the rest of the world???
Do you know WHY gays could be prosecuted back then? Because the law was based on the majority opinion that they knew better than those gays what was in the best interest of the gays. The majority knew that being gay was bad - and that it was against the law and too bad that gays didn't realize the law was really in their best interest.
Thanks M for giving me such a fine opportunity to point out why that is such an obscene conceit of both liberals and conservatives.
The bottom line is that, as you have pointed out many times, everyone is prejudiced. And it follows that everyone is discriminated against.
Yes, gays are discriminated against.
So are straights. So are men. So are women. So are bis. So are blacks, whites, reds, yellows, browns, etc. So are Christians. So are Muslims. So are Jews. So are Buddhists, Hindus, Wiccans, etc.
You may as well get over that, because it's not going to change, ever. It's basic to human nature and it's not going to go away. As we have personally seen over the last 50 years, it doesn't get eliminated it just gets spread around in new ways. The prejudice stays the same, only what qualifies as "oh but that's different" changes.
Once you realize that, you realize the question is not whether government can secure the rights of X, but whether you can trust A ruling party or B ruling party either one to secure the rights of X without pandering to their own prejudices in the process.
This is why I don't think the government should be in the marriage business at all.
The fundamentalist right and the liberal left both fall into the trap of thinking their own side can be "fair". I call bullshit on both of them.
Personally I find the worship of The Lightworker(tm) every bit as creepy as any other form of cultism, religious or not.
What is marriage Mark?
Ya gotta break these things down first before you can talk about them.
Marriage is a combination of religious act and legal contract.
As you have pointed out recently - the government shouldn't even be involved in the religious act portion.
As to the legal contract? If you wish to change the part referring to whom may be allowed to enter into such a binding contract, wouldn't it be best to just toss out all the restrictions and allow any consenting adults to enter into said contract? That would be the most logically, legally and intellectually consistent.
"If you wish to change the part referring to whom may be allowed to enter into such a binding contract, wouldn't it be best to just toss out all the restrictions and allow any consenting adults to enter into said contract? That would be the most logically, legally and intellectually consistent."
I completely agree with you. Please note the date and time. This portion of you statement is what will end up being the ultimate undoing of bans on gay marriage. In many ways, it echoes Judge Walker's brief that I'm certain was written specifically for Kennedy.
My beef was with the site and how I just can't get my head around such a massive contradiction. I do realize that most here are libertarians and don't give a shit what gay people do. My beef is with the base that imagines a decayed society if gays are allowed to marry. It makes no sense to me at all.
I completely agree with you
Good! So, of course you also agree then that siblings should be able to marry, and that polygamy should be no more than a contract between consenting adults?
And what do we call it? Marriage? Isn't that supposed to be a religious institution? And what if a church refuses to sanction marriages they don't believe in? Do we then use the government to institute rules regarding religion?
I don't think that siblings should be allowed to be marry. Drawing a correlation between people that are siblings and homosexuals is basically the same thing as saying that gay people are the same as people that want to fuck pets.
I have no problem with polygamy. Why it is illegal is beyond me.
Several churches sanction gay marriage. Some don't. It's up to them to duke it out. Essentially, consenting (and non sibling or parent-child adults) should be allowed to enter into civil unions should they desire. What if it is two friends who have a non sexual relationship but want each to have the benefits of the civil side of marriage?
Not making a judgement Mark. Interesting that you made that correlation though.
Point being that once we decide that it's not a marriage, that it's just a civil contract that any consenting adults can enter into. Then anytime we limit someone from entering into said contract then we are doing nothing different than bashing gays or ahem, comparing gay marriage to beast love.
Sorry, posting on the phone can be a pain.
Anyway, even you just balked at letting siblings enter into a consenting legal partnership.
It's either a marriage, with the attendant limitations that can and should be placed on it, or it's a civil contact where the only limitation we should place is that those entering can make that decision.
It's either a marriage, with the attendant limitations that can and should be placed on it, or it's a civil contact where the only limitation we should place is that those entering can make that decision.
Personally I have no problem with a sibling contract as long as it doesn't produce children. I guess that's the pro-lifer in me showing, feeling like you can't deliberately choose to harm those who will one day be adult people as a direct result of your decisions. However, I agree that that would quickly turn into a legal Gordian knot.
The problem (as I see it anyway) with extending such freedom to form contracts to children and animals is that neither of those groups is capable of accepting adult legal responsibility, therefore it's irrational to give them an adult's legal authority.
"Not making a judgement Mark. Interesting that you made that correlation though."
Well, if you have ever had a debate with someone against gay marriage (I've had a zillion) they always have the same talking points. Should siblings be allowed to marry? Fathers marry their daughters? Should people be allowed to marry pets?
Why does it have to be an either/or? People are allowed to have sex outside of marriage now (they used to not be) but they still can't have sex with minors. You are drawing a correlation between two things shouldn't be correlated...homosexual relationships and incest or beastiality. Civil contracts have limitations as well based on other laws which having sex with your dad or your dog would fall under.
But DT raises an interesting point. If the marriage is a non sexual one or doesn't produce children, would that be permissable? That's a tough one but it is tangentially related to my idea of two people wanted to have a civil contract while just being friends. What if both parties had no family?
That's just it DT, we gotta stop looking at it as a sex thing. Take the gov't out of the bedroom and it's just a business arrangement. Of course when you take the sex out it's not a marriage anymore either, but contracts, not copulation is the proper bailiwick of gov't.
Ironically M, that pretty much puts you back to what made marriage a state-based institution - the desire to manage/pass-on property. Marriage as a cultural institution is entirely different.
I suspect the great resistance to SSM (and any of the other postulated versions) is rooted in the cultural base - that which is legal becomes that which is culturally acceptable. Yet another example of the problem with law being the moral instrument of the majority.
Good points-both of you.
I do think that there is a delineation between types of morality. Same sex marriage is an entirely different issue than entitlement programs, wouldn't you agree?
I want to take the Commandant's concerns seriously, I really do. And I know it's a personal flaw that I cannot. You see, I honestly believe I would be able to take him seriously if he didn't remind me so much of Sterling Hayden in Dr. Strangelove.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001330/
One of my favorite films...Kubrick is a genius...my favorite director, actually. I don't get the reference, though.
Compare and contrast.
Gen. James Amos, Commandant of the Marine Corps:
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/12/19/dadt-repeal-begins-a-long-tortured-process.html
Sterling Hayden as Brigadier General Jack Ripper:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001330/
As I said, I'd probably find it a lot easier to take him seriously if the resemblance wasn't so creepy. As it is, I keep expecting him to say that allowing gays to serve openly threatens our vital essence.
Post a Comment