As reported best in the Seattle Times, gay marriage is now somewhat legal in Washington State. I say "somewhat" because the decision is "stayed" - meaning "won't go into effect" - until the state Supreme Court reviews the case on appeal. Pretty cool stuff, if it goes through. I'm glad I'm moving to a state where this is the trend.
Let me be straight here, if you'll pardon the pun. I don't understand people who claim that gay marriage is an affront to the sanctity of marriage. Because a drive-through wedding in Vegas presided over by an Elvis impersonator is not a more holy and sacred thing than two people of the same gender having a wedding with all of the "traditional" trappings.
I put the word traditional in quotes because the traditional wedding we see in the United States today dates, as do so many of our customs, to the mid-1700's or so. Before then, they did it different. And that's without getting into the cultures that encouraged homosexual relationships. Like, say, ancient Greece, where homosexual love was the only form of love possible, what with women not having souls and all. Or medieval Arabia where young boys, the more feminine the better, had as much of a place in the harems as women.
If you're going to use history as your referent, you should try not to be ignorant of it.
Comments (6)
very thorny subject to discuss like this....
Posted by gus | August 5, 2004 7:09 PM
Posted on August 5, 2004 19:09
Eh. Very thorny subject to discuss pretty much anywhere, Gus. But I figure it's my blog, so I get to talk about whatever the hell I want to.
'Course, I'm just doing what I always do - calling an idiot an idiot. I, personally, am in favor of homosexuals having the right to marry. I fully accept that any other given person may have a different, and potentially valid, opinion. The part where I get annoyed is when people use information that's biased or just flat out false to prove their case. (You'll notice that in my original post I didn't bring up the religious angle - that's a different set of arguments and, while I might not agree with them, I can see how they at least have some ground to stand on.)
Posted by Jason | August 6, 2004 9:53 AM
Posted on August 6, 2004 09:53
you must get an msn account so we can properly discuss some issues like this.
this topic in particular is too volatile to discuss here comfortably, at least for me.
Posted by gus | August 6, 2004 4:26 PM
Posted on August 6, 2004 16:26
Yay for Washington State! The state where I am, currently, has not only banned gay marrige, but also invalidates any legal contract between two people of the same sex. This state may choose, at its leisure, to not recognize a power of attorney or a will if it is drawn up between gay partners. Isn't that lovely?
Posted by Meg | August 6, 2004 9:17 PM
Posted on August 6, 2004 21:17
MSN account? Damn, Gus! In a few weeks I don't think I'll even be using hotmail anymore! The less I have to do with Microsoft, the happier I'll be. (Says the man who'll never own a Mac and is quite happy to be running Windows XP, which he's never had a problem with...)
However, I will give you my ICQ number, as soon as I start using the blasted program again.
Oh, and Meg? That's what you get for living South of the Mason-Dixon line. Buncha damn hicks over there. Only damn civilized places in this country are North of D.C. and east of the Appalachians or West of the Rockies. But I'm not at all biased, no. ^_-
Posted by jason | August 7, 2004 11:01 AM
Posted on August 7, 2004 11:01
My home state of Missouri just this past Tuesday amended the constitution to outlaw gay marriage. And they can go on and on and on about how it's "not anti-gay, it's PRO-traditional marriage." Yeah right. Just like opponents of suffrage for women weren't "anti-woman," they were "PRO-traditional gender roles." Proponents of literacy tests for voting eligibility in the South weren't "anti-blacks voting," they were "PRO-traditional voter demographics." So because the language is positive and not negative, it's all good, right?
Any time one of those Superchristians starts throwing around Leviticus 20:13, just do what I do: throw them back Leviticus 11:10. SHRIMP ARE AN ABOMINATION. SO ARE LOBSTERS. EAT NOT THESE FILTHY CREATURES LEST YE SIN AGAINST ME. Because you know that they might enjoy a nice lobster tail or shrimp scampi between judgement-passing sessions.
And hey! The anti-shellfish verse comes NINE CHAPTERS before the anti-homosexuality verse, showing prioritization! So tell THAT to the self-appointed American Morality Police next time you see them. They already love me, as you may have guessed. :)
Posted by Ben | August 7, 2004 5:53 PM
Posted on August 7, 2004 17:53