![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I freely admit that I grew up in Kansas. In a tiny little farm town that was known for being the exact opposite of culturally diverse. The people of that town couldn't have been more cookie cutter identical without snatching bodies and introducing android replicants just like Stepford. And not the remake Stepford Wives, either, because the remake Stepfords openly accepted a gay couple and my home town was totally not accepting of things like that. Those two ladies down the road that have been living together since the dawn of time and who people whisper about behind their hands? They are just sharing living expenses, damn it, and who told you about *barely audible whisper* lesbians?
I had a friend that I knew was gay. He knew it. All our friends knew it. Yet no one EVER mentioned it. He took girls to the dances, taught me how to two-step (it only happened once and I refuse to do it ever again, I swear) and was a generally great guy. But he couldn't be himself. He had a boyfriend that he had to drive thirty minutes away to see, that he could never mention at school or anywhere for that matter, that he couldn't bring to dances or pep rallies or to the gas station to hang on Friday night (Once again, I point out "Farm Town").
I was in my mid-twenties before I finally met someone who was openly gay.
Now, having spent my entire school age years trying to earn the right to be left alone by people who wanted to Stepfordize me with their religion, their fashion, their out look on life, their everything that I wasn't and didn't want to be... I was remarkably blase about finding out. He was happy. He wasn't trying to "convert me" (And no, I do not think that homosexual people have little recruitment drives and try to lure straight people over to the other side. I personally believe that each of us knows what we prefer, whether we want to admit it or not, whether that preference has been there since birth or not and there is no "Making Someone Gay" - only accepting something that may have been there for a very long time.) so why the hell should who he liked to hook-up with concern me?
What I thought, in my own uniquely naive way, was what right would I have to judge another for trying to do the exact same things I was attempting to do with my life?
I'm not writing this to start an argument about morality or sin or biblical right from wrong. I'm writing this because I grew up in Kansas, home of the Wizard of Oz and Fred Phelps, and today was April 5th. Voting day for the proposed state constitutional amendment stating that marriage is a union solely between one man and one woman. My opinion on the matter is quite clear. I'm sure anyone reading this has their mind firmly made up one way or the other. I'm not trying to change that opinion.
What I would like to say is that the blatant misinformation being circulated in regards to this amendment is enough to make my brain hurt.
On my last trip to Kansas I received no less than three pamphlets on the subject. All against same sex marriages and for "protecting the sanctity of a union before God". But that's not what the vote is about, or at least it shouldn't be. Marriage and "a union before God" are not interchangeable terms. This should not be about religion, this should be about the right to pursue happiness.
Two of the pamphlets assured me that marriage has been defined as a union solely between a man and a woman for thousands of years. And that only the above defined marriage is acceptable around the world.
I know this to be false. Many cultures have a polygamy-base familial system. And I don't think they would take too kindly to us announcing that their thousands of years old traditions are wrong. A little closer to home I can point to Utah less than a hundred years ago. Hard to believe, I'm sure, but polygamy used to be accepted here in our own blessed United States.
When I ask what's so bad about letting two people who just happen to be the same sex enjoy the same privileges that I have with my husband, it inevitably comes down to a matter of fear disguised as arguments against perversity and sin. I just don't understand that. I don't understand what they fear.
Now, having said my piece, feel free to disagree with me, leave me something in the comments. I'm fine with that and am willing to discuss it. I will leave the comments unscreened. With two conditions.
1) No anonymous rants about how I'm going to Hell because I disagree with you. Trust me, I've heard that one before. A lot. If you do feel that I'm going to spend eternity in hellish flames, at least be polite enough to leave me your name so if the time comes I can think to myself "Gee, so and so was right." Although, in the spirit of complete honesty, I'm agnostic so threats of hellish damnation don't carry as much weight with me as you might have hoped.
2) If your opinion is entirely faith based, please be willing to admit that. I don't mind discussing religious beliefs as long as the person I'm talking to is willing to understand that I don't necessarily share those beliefs (see item number one) and will be asking questions to better understand why someone believes what they do. I'm always curious to see how someone's belief system shapes their everyday life.
I had a friend that I knew was gay. He knew it. All our friends knew it. Yet no one EVER mentioned it. He took girls to the dances, taught me how to two-step (it only happened once and I refuse to do it ever again, I swear) and was a generally great guy. But he couldn't be himself. He had a boyfriend that he had to drive thirty minutes away to see, that he could never mention at school or anywhere for that matter, that he couldn't bring to dances or pep rallies or to the gas station to hang on Friday night (Once again, I point out "Farm Town").
I was in my mid-twenties before I finally met someone who was openly gay.
Now, having spent my entire school age years trying to earn the right to be left alone by people who wanted to Stepfordize me with their religion, their fashion, their out look on life, their everything that I wasn't and didn't want to be... I was remarkably blase about finding out. He was happy. He wasn't trying to "convert me" (And no, I do not think that homosexual people have little recruitment drives and try to lure straight people over to the other side. I personally believe that each of us knows what we prefer, whether we want to admit it or not, whether that preference has been there since birth or not and there is no "Making Someone Gay" - only accepting something that may have been there for a very long time.) so why the hell should who he liked to hook-up with concern me?
What I thought, in my own uniquely naive way, was what right would I have to judge another for trying to do the exact same things I was attempting to do with my life?
I'm not writing this to start an argument about morality or sin or biblical right from wrong. I'm writing this because I grew up in Kansas, home of the Wizard of Oz and Fred Phelps, and today was April 5th. Voting day for the proposed state constitutional amendment stating that marriage is a union solely between one man and one woman. My opinion on the matter is quite clear. I'm sure anyone reading this has their mind firmly made up one way or the other. I'm not trying to change that opinion.
What I would like to say is that the blatant misinformation being circulated in regards to this amendment is enough to make my brain hurt.
On my last trip to Kansas I received no less than three pamphlets on the subject. All against same sex marriages and for "protecting the sanctity of a union before God". But that's not what the vote is about, or at least it shouldn't be. Marriage and "a union before God" are not interchangeable terms. This should not be about religion, this should be about the right to pursue happiness.
Two of the pamphlets assured me that marriage has been defined as a union solely between a man and a woman for thousands of years. And that only the above defined marriage is acceptable around the world.
I know this to be false. Many cultures have a polygamy-base familial system. And I don't think they would take too kindly to us announcing that their thousands of years old traditions are wrong. A little closer to home I can point to Utah less than a hundred years ago. Hard to believe, I'm sure, but polygamy used to be accepted here in our own blessed United States.
When I ask what's so bad about letting two people who just happen to be the same sex enjoy the same privileges that I have with my husband, it inevitably comes down to a matter of fear disguised as arguments against perversity and sin. I just don't understand that. I don't understand what they fear.
Now, having said my piece, feel free to disagree with me, leave me something in the comments. I'm fine with that and am willing to discuss it. I will leave the comments unscreened. With two conditions.
1) No anonymous rants about how I'm going to Hell because I disagree with you. Trust me, I've heard that one before. A lot. If you do feel that I'm going to spend eternity in hellish flames, at least be polite enough to leave me your name so if the time comes I can think to myself "Gee, so and so was right." Although, in the spirit of complete honesty, I'm agnostic so threats of hellish damnation don't carry as much weight with me as you might have hoped.
2) If your opinion is entirely faith based, please be willing to admit that. I don't mind discussing religious beliefs as long as the person I'm talking to is willing to understand that I don't necessarily share those beliefs (see item number one) and will be asking questions to better understand why someone believes what they do. I'm always curious to see how someone's belief system shapes their everyday life.
Tags:
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
Your answer to my point is to go behind the expressed purpose of the reliefs and to give them some implicit purpose that cannot be justified on their wording.
When people draft tax legislation they are perfectly capable of targetting reliefs at the most carefully defined class of individual rather than taking a scatter gun approach. If the legislature really intended to encourage marriage, then the reliefs would be drafted to benefit marriage and nothing else.
If dependent relief is given to people regardless of sexual orientation then the purpose of those reliefs cannot be to encourage heterosexual couples to have children. Because it would be quite easy to add a condition in the legislation, if so desired, that such relief would only be given where the parents were married. Then, and only then, would it be possible to argue that incentives were being given to promote different sex marriage as the best situation for child rearing.
From:
no subject
I said childbearing not rearing
Actually you said both, I just picked up on the rearing one, sorry.
If dependent relief is given to people regardless of sexual orientation then the purpose of those reliefs cannot be to encourage heterosexual couples to have children.
No its not, nor did I claim that it did. I said, that breeders are going to breed. Children are going to be born, and the government gives tax benefits to those that care for them (dependent relief), whoever that is (single parent, married parents, adoptive parents, whatever).
Yet additional benefits are given to the group most likely to care for chidren (that being their genetic parents who almost always are mixed-sex couples), to promote the children being raised in a stable environment (hopefully). That is why mixed-sex couples are given potential marriage benefits. They are group that is most likely to care for children (being the genetic parents) and to have (being mixed-sex vs. same-sex).
I know we will not see each others view so that is why I'm stepping out. I know you aren't going to be able to show me evidence that will prove to me that:
1. same-sex couples are harmed by not being given marriage benefits over other people of the same-sex who live together (long term roommates who have no sexual relationships for example).
2. that there is some signficant benefit to society for promoting same-sex marriages (and opening the door for many-partner marriages), other than a sense of "we did good".
I know I will not be able to prove to your satisfaction any justifable reason that same-sex partners shouldn't be given benefits. I have given reasons but you haven't accepted them as is your choice. Just as you have given me reasons for the benefits to society that same-sex marriages would promote and I haven't accepted them.
So all I can say is. Keep up the fight! If my position is truly wrong time will tell. Bigotry can never surpress righteousness forever (unless we can find a way of changing them pesky freakys' brain chemistry, lol, just kidding, or am I? ;) ) If my position is right then we shall see some bad effects in those parts of the world that have embraced same-sex marriages. The usually best way to tell if something is "good" or "bad" is to study the results.
For example, excessive premartial sex is usually "bad" because it promotes unsafe behaviour and can negatively affect a persons self-worth. Which brings up a thought, I wonder how often a group of homosexuals as said, "We want to get married because we believe premarital sex is wrong." It is an interesting position. Of course it would most likely not be based on religion as most religions don't accept homosexual behaviour and therefore would never accept homosexual marriages. Though, I think there are some very legitmate secular reasons why a person might support the idea of how premartial sex is wrong.
Oh well, have fun. Got to get back to life and get off these sites. Take it easy.