i got into another gay marriage argument today, via facebook comments this time. i have to copy paste because it seems some of my most lucid thought processes happen after midnight. i noticed some not-so-open-minded comments on a post about RI holding out as the last new england state not to legalize same sex marriage. there were many, many voices heard, so these were only a few of the comments, and my responses to them. this is where it starts:
KH: wow. really rhode islanders?
how did i never realize i had lived amongst such disgustingly close-minded bigots?
let me just tell you, from this side of the massachusetts border, life doesn’t change once gay people get the same rights that you have. in fact, nothing is different at all, except that more of the population is happier.
time to get over yourselves.
it’s inevitable. it will happen. you’re fooling yourself if you think you can stop progress.
KW: i love how if i don’t think like you im ignorant or a hater or any other label you dont deserve it just cause you use labels and dont respect other point of views we were founded on god
mariage is a man and women plain and simple why should i change my belfis for you when you wont do it for me
KH: thing is, it’s not a matter of opinion or point of view. it’s a matter of civil rights.
i don’t even believe in marriage. it’s a silly, archaic tradition, but because i’m a straight girl, it’s a right i get to renounce.
how about we write a law that states that no one with blue eyes is allowed to get married?
don’t kid yourself with the notion that it’s any more arbitrary than prohibiting same sex marriage.
KA: You Have NOT done a lot of studies on the bible. You’re ignorance shows that. Marriage is a sacred thing. So for any of you to tell anyone else how to view it is ridiculous. THAT would be narrow minded.
KH: marriage is a sacred thing to *some* people.
not, for example, britney spears and her 56-hour vegas debaucle, which everyone seemed to laugh off.
or fully 41% of the US population, which gets divorced every year.
or maybe the “sacred” polygamous unions described in the forgotten parts of the bible, since that’s just not cool anymore.
and if it’s such a “sacred thing,” why wouldn’t you want more people to experience the utter holy joy of it? (that was pure sarcasm.)
it’s just something you want to hold over the heads of 10% of the human population, a way for you to feel superior to someone, a club from which you get to exclude people.
i’ve got at least a hundred more reasons why it’s wrong and a double standard to deprive gays the right to marry, and all you’ve got to go on is that “marriage is a sacred thing” and that it’s in the bible?
that book was written (by HUMANS) 2000 years ago. the world has changed. the bible has not.
time to come up with a better reason.
MD: Maybe RI wants to resist the trendy impulses of the other New England states. What’s wrong with being unique?
KH: unique is worshiping a giant blue termite, not oppressing other humans.
KA: I think it’s wrong….. As does most of the population. Tyical liberal……if someone disagrees with you they are just so wrong and you have to attack their beliefs. LOL . Just cuz you don’t agree. Silly girl.
KH: your beliefs are only allowed to affect YOU.
why should your dogma stamp on the rights of other people?
typical christian…your beliefs are the *right* beliefs.
KA: Just my beliefs. Which I will fight to make sure are not violated by anyone
KH: *your* beliefs will do just fine. have them.
how will your life change in the slightest? will your marriage mean less if more people are allowed to wed?
you better just get used to it. it will arrive, and you’ll never even notice a difference.
i love getting into these arguments.
those of us in favor have witnessed and lived with injustice our entire lives. the thought of change inspires only excitement and expectation, and we have a thousand reasons why it is the right way.
the opposition gets panicky at the thought of change and uncharted waters, and they effectively stamp their feet and pout about it, without ever forming a cohesive argument.
you guys just make us look so darn smart.
______________
with that, i’m signing off. it’s 2:30am, and it’s been a pretty good day. good night.
EDIT: a priest jumped into the argument, and i have no qualms about aiming the fight in his direction. also, a fellow pro-gay rights debater has sided with me. and i must say, she’s quite a bit more respectful and less incendiary than i am… but this topic just makes me so angry! read on:
FATHER JOE: At this point, let’s distinguish between homosexual attraction and homosexual acts. The Catholic Church teaches that sexual attraction is not wrong. Homosexual attraction is not wrong. Homosexual acts are, like any other sexual act outside of the marriage of one man and one woman is wrong. So, this also makes lust, masturbation, fornication (that’s premarital sex), sexual abuse, pornography, prostitution and rape wrong. And it also makes contraception and abortion wrong, but those are separate issues. The grace and the consolation is that we are all sinners, yet we are all loved by God. Therefore, any attempt to put down or belittle those with homosexual attractions would also be wrong.
God the Creator is the author of marriage. He intended it for one man and one woman. This is natural law and divine law. Any sexual act outside of marriage is intrinsically wrong.
LD: Then why does the Bible claim polygamy is acceptable? I was studying to be an Episcopal priest. I suppose this is why the church split.
FATHER JOE: The Bile doesn’t condone polygamy. It reports that it was a practice among the ancient Hebrews. The Bible, particularly the Old Testament, needs to be read as a development of understanding of God’s will. In the Old Testament the polygamy of the patriarchs and kings was not explicitly rejected. However, the law given to Moses aims at protecting the wife from arbitrary domination by the husband. As to the split among the churches, that is a separate issue and only remotely related to marriage. The Episcopal / Anglican Church split from the Catholic Church because Henry VIII did not agree with Pope Clement the VII’s refusal to annul Henry’s marriage to Catherine.
LD: I know why the Anglicans initially split. It’s just strange to me that the book without any contradictions seems to have many different explanations/interpretations by those who read it. I’m sure you can respect that opinion.
KH: it “needs to be read” that way? so what you’re in fact saying (and i can’t believe i’m even remotely surprised by this) is that the *only* scriptures followed by all of judaism are incomplete? by that logic, that would mean that the jewish faith is inherently wrong and you, by virtue of having read the new testament, are right.
well. so much for “love thy neighbor.”
how utterly christian of you. what a shame the derision in my tone cannot be fully communicated through text.
the bible is chock full of contradictions. people like you would prefer to ignore the segments that don’t aid, or even directly oppose, the views they want to express. they pick out biblical soundbites and engineer their verbose but flimsy arguments around statements that were made in a distant and FAR less educated age.
and what about me? i refuse to open a bible. i cannot fathom living my life according the rules in a book written 2000 years ago. do you pray for my unholy soul?
LD: Kally, your testimony is exactly why I WAS studying to be a priest, and have decided against that route. I can’t bring myself to believe that all people such as Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Agnostics, etc. will be damned because they didn’t convert. I just can’t buy it.
KH: exactly.
just because i don’t follow the christian mythology doesn’t make me an inherently bad person. it just makes me different.
fortunately, atheism is still legal, and atheists can get married, because we actually don’t *need* a church for that. and since that’s the case, why don’t these zealous bigots put up a bigger fuss about non-believers trying to steal their rituals?
many of my gay friends *are* christian, but their religion is somehow superseded by sexuality as a deciding factor.
it’s all so hypocritical.
TT: What i have learned is God makes the rule and im pretty sure in somewhere in the bible that says gays won’t enter the kingdom of god. Why? Since God said so.
KH: right. well some of us don’t believe in god, and as such, don’t use that as an excuse to discriminate.
FATHER JOE: Society has tried to teach that sex is just for fun, that you can separate sex from procreation. But this ignores what the Christian tradition has taught consistently for over two millennia, that sex has two purposes, unity of the couple, as Jesus put it, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’…” and second procreation, that is the generation and raising of children. Again, this second and equally important purpose of sexuality is not possible in homosexual unions. God the Creator has intended married love to be for the good of the couple and for the procreation and raising of children. So, it seems that natural law says that homosexual acts are not right.
KH: society doesn’t “try” to teach that. it *does* teach it, because sex is natural and healthy. if it weren’t why would human physiology crave it as intensely as it does?
i have no inclination to ever marry or have children. i was not born with that innate urge, and i’m not even gay. i just hate kids. does that mean that when i crave sex, my body is lying to me?
does it mean that i should ignore what is a natural, biological occurrence and abstain from sex for the rest of my life?
not bloody likely, i can tell you that much.
similarly, gay people have needs that don’t include the opposite sex. so therefore, are they lying to themselves more by suppressing the urges or by having them at all?
do you believe that sexuality is based on choice, and if so, at what point do you think they chose to lead this life, knowing full well that it would be wrought with this sort of discrimination?
also, when in their development do straight people choose to be straight? i certainly don’t remember the day when the light went on for me. it was just sort of always there.
please explain.
FATHER JOE: I am a Catholic Priest. I state that at the beginning so that you will know from where I am coming.
First the basic teaching of the Catholic Church on marriage: It is part of natural and divine law that marriage is between one man and one woman. Any other combination is simply wrong. And any sex outside of that union of a married man and woman is wrong. This is where the virtue of chastity comes into play, a virtue all people are called to live. Our society, may not like this teaching, but this has been the teaching of Christianity for over 2,000 years.
KH: divine law has absolutely no place in state law. period. if it is your claim that it does, then we have an entirely different argument on our hands.
______________
i can’t guarantee that will be the end of it… i have trouble walking away from this kind of fight, partly because i am enraged by closeminded people, and partly because i know, without a doubt, that i am right.
not like, “i’m right, and you’re wrong! nyah nyah!” although that *is* what i feel like saying sometimes when i encounter these bigots. it’s more like how we know that the civil rights movement was right and women’s sufferage was right. few (sane) people would dare argue now that either of those was an unworthy cause, and i can’t help thinking that if we just keep this fight going, eventually, hopefully sooner than later, we’ll get there.
and besides, i always walk away feeling exceptionally intelligent after these encounters!
