Totzkeeeeee's Blog

Just because I can...

  Home  |   Contact  |   Syndication    |   Login
  216 Posts | 4 Stories | 345 Comments | 321 Trackbacks

News


My blog is worth $14,678.04.
How much is your blog worth?

Tag Cloud


Archives

Blog Roll

Cool Sites

It's rhetorical and directed at this guy, so don't answer.  He posted last Wednesday that we should all have a read of how he took a commenter to task and that it was “Worth a read.”   It wasn't.  I'll spare you the task of wading through the stupidity by responding here to his main points. 

Hmmmm...

You said this would be worth a read.  It really wasn't although that is somewhat open to subjective opinion so I'll let it slide.  However, your logic is specious at best and meretricious at worst.

Whenever you try to use your flawed analogy based on the substitution of another class of people you display its shortcoming.  You advise us to "substitute 'blacks' or 'jews' for the group in question."  The example given being: "Jews should not be allowed to marry Christians." A proper substitution should be: Jews (or Blacks) should not be allowed to marry _each_other_"  because that's really what is being said about Gays.  Gays are not allowed to marry _each_other_. 

Now it makes sense and has the intended impact.  Your way simply opens up the topic to wider debate aside from just being stupid.  There are those that would argue that there are good reasons that the races or creeds should not intermarry.  I am not one of those people, but they are out there.  Try to find someone that will argue that Jew should not marry Jew; or that Christian should not marry Christian.  I am sure that you could, but few would listen.

Your reference to the "trashy pop-star and her boy-toy-of-the-moment" could only refer to the Britney Spears incident.  Their marriage was seen as the mistake that it was and summarily anulled.  It wasn't even consummated.  As such, they never did gain the liberties, rights and responsibilities of which you spoke.  If that is not what you meant, I apologize; it is, none-the-less, what many of us may have thought.

You justify the current ban on polygamy stating that you "don't think our society is prepared for the implications of it."  What I think you really mean is that the Christian right in our society isn't prepared for it.  That's really what's at the root of the Gay issue as well.  Despite the assumed separation of Church and State, does anyone really believe that is anything more than a thin veil?  How could a devout Christian ever come out (no pun intended) in support of Gay marriage?  Or abortion?  Why haven't you come right out and said it?  Possibly because that would reveal you as a bigot as well?  Just a thought.

I think *Rob* came closest to the problem (and then just got silly) by stating that the problem is with the current definition of marriage as being "Marriage = (1) consenting adult man + (1) consenting adult woman".  Part of the definition also requires consumation of the marriage (i.e. sex ) because a marriage in most cultures carries with it the expectation that it will be fruitful. (hey, maybe that's the loophole for Gay marriage?)  Marriage is all about procreation of the species.  That's why polygamy has been accepted in many countries throughout history and Gay unions have not; even during times when homosexuality itself was accepted.  One pretty much guarantees the survival of the human race and the other does not.

Since you are so fond of illation, try this on for size.  What if we said: “All men should marry men and all women should marry women.“  The human race could not survive.  Shouldn't any alternative at the very least be a viable one?  I know, it's dumb; but turnabout is fair play.

IMNSHO, as long as the focus is Gay "marriage" there is not likely to be much progress for the reasons stated above.  What needs to happen is the creation of an alternative form of union, preferably open to all, that grants the same legal benefit to the participants.  Call it Partnerage - (tm) (c) (r) all rights reserved - "Hey, Lisa and Jill are getting Partnered " - (tm) (c) (r) all rights reserved - "on Sunday.  Are you going?"

So, I started out thinking that I have no opinion on the whole Gay marriage thing.  That's a load of Dingo's Kidneys. ( (c) Douglas Adams; all rights reserved) You have shown me that I am decidedly against Gay Marriage.  (probably not your original intent, I'm guessing) I am, however, NOT against some other form of union that grants them the same rights and responsibilities that a marriage bestows upon a man and a woman.  It all comes down to procreation of the species.  A Gay union, despite all else, cannot result in the creation of a "new" life on this earth.  At our core, that's what we are all about.

Dave
Just because I can...

 

posted on Monday, August 2, 2004 1:40 AM

Feedback

# re: Feeling a Little Full of Ourselves Are We? 8/6/2004 3:12 PM Andy
You make some good points, even if I disagree with them. I do think just getting people to think about this issue is a goal of my posts, so in that I have succeeded. We don’t have to agree.... ;)

Re: “flawed analogy” jews/blacks. The analogy is not group-based but rather reflects groups that have been denied the right to marry in the past, restrictions that now seem ridiculous. In that the analogy works.

Re: Britney Spears: she isn’t the first, nor will be the last of this kind of thing, and having the marriage annulled later does not change the fact that for a time they were married. If Brit had died during those few hours he would have been her legal heir, could have visited her in the hospital, etc. Gays have to file many, many legal documents to get similar (but not equal) rights costing significant legal fees and time. (And completely off-topic, I don’t doubt that marriage was consummated, before and after the ceremony. Come on, if you married her in a quickie Vegas deal, wouldn’t you take her up to the bedroom first off? ;) )

The main point here is denying gays the right to marriage restricts them to a subclass of citizenship without the same civil benefits that straight people have—and that, I believe, is wrong. Now as you mention, if a new “union” could be created that would give all people the same benefits and responsibilities in a civil sense without using the overly empowered word of “marriage” I would support that. “Marriage” would be a religious thing. “Partnering” ;) would be a civil thing. The problem with that is it would require thousands and thousands of laws to be changed across the country, laws that specifically refer to “marriage” or “spouse” rather than “partnering” or “partners” and I for one think our leaders have better things to do that review and update all those laws…. If a law could be written such that it automatically change the interpretation of all those other laws, then great, but the courts and legal system being the nit-pickers that they are I doubt such a law would completely solve the issue.

IMNSHO
-Andy


# re: Feeling a Little Full of Ourselves Are We? 8/6/2004 3:21 PM David Totzke
>>Re: Re: “flawed analogy” jews/blacks.

I suppose during the time of slavery and in Nazi Germany you are probably correct there. I never did think of it that way. The way you stated it though referred to inter-marriage of the groups. It's nitpicking to be sure, but it's an important difference where your cause is concerned.

>>Re: Re: Britney Spears: she isn’t the first, nor will be the last of this kind of thing,

No doubt there...

>>and having the marriage annulled later does not change the fact that for a time they were married.

Ummmm, actually, that's the definition of an anullment. The marriage never existed in any civil or religious context.

>>If Brit had died during those few hours he would have been her legal heir,

I am sure that would have been challenged and won fairly quickly given the size of estate.

>>I don’t doubt that marriage was consummated, before and after the ceremony.

>>Come on, if you married her in a quickie Vegas deal, wouldn’t you take her up to the bedroom first off? ;) )

Ok, I'm gonna have to give you that one...

Dave


Comments have been closed on this topic.