I don’t like to get too political. Not because I’m timid in my beliefs; only because I know that the internet is a vast collection of the foulest trolls, bigots, and all-around horrible people. They might be a minority in the community, but there certainly the loudest. For example, I think the majority of Top YouTube Channels are reporting an average of 1% of their subscribers are active on that channel as far as commenting and replying within a 1 month time period. Anywho. The more you know, right?
So on my drive home, I was listening to the radio and they were playing sound bites of arguments for the DOMA Supreme Court trial, and there was this one guy that just stood out as a Class Act. I’m paraphrasing mostly, but He mentioned that the reason why he was against Gay Marriage wasn’t because he was against ‘the gays’ or even ‘domestic partnerships’, he was against Gay Marriage because it breaches the ‘traditional procreative purpose of marriage’.
Traditional Procreative Purposes of Marriage.
Alright, I’ll play ball. Listen, buddy. I’m not going to argue with you. In fact, I’m going to agree with you. But my problem with your argument is, why stop there? If the purpose of marriage is to Procreate, then I think that every couple MUST have a minimum of one child, because, and I may be paraphrasing here, that’s how it’s Traditionally supposed to be. No matter what, You must have One child.
Oh, and You can’t get divorced. you have to have one child, and you can’t get divorced, no matter the circumstance.
You know what? You can’t get married unless your christian too, because Marriage, after all, is Traditionally a religious institution. So you have to be a christian and have your wedding in a church in order to get married; after which you must produce at least one child and you can’t get divorced. no excuses.
I think this whole ‘sanctity’ of marriage argument is as equally dangerous as their argument of ‘where do you draw the line?’ Opponents of Gay Marriage will often say that legalizing it would open the door to a whole mess of questionable ‘g[r]ay’ areas such as people wanting to marry minors, or animals, or inanimate objects;
you know, because Gay people are on the same level as inanimate objects.
I agree; where do you draw the line? If you don’t allow Gay Marriage because it’s a religious institution with ‘traditional procreative purposes’, what’s to stop later trials saying that you have to have kids, you can’t get divorced, and you must be a christian wedded in a church in order to get married?
Wow, This post is getting bigger than I intended. Sorry.
I guess I’ll end with a broader statement. My problem, overall, as I’m sure is the same problem that free-thinking twenty-thirty somethings are having, with the Republican Right or the Conservative Base, is that they force me to become a single-issue voter. I’m not a Democrat; I don’t know what their higher ideals are or how they wish to change or destroy the country; I have no idea what fiscal policy is going to help or hurt the country the most; mostly because neither side will explain it to me straightly and instead accuse me of being an ignorant voter for not having taken Political Science as a major along with a double major in Macroeconomics and a minor in public sector micro-finance (i think i made that last one up).
But in my heart, I’m a humanist, and I think that everyone should be entitled to the same rights as a basic human beings. It pisses me off to no end when I hear somebody who adamantly blames the government for ‘controlling’ their lives because of their fiscal policy and proclaims for freedom…and in the same breath say that they think that same government, the one they were blaming for having too much control over their lives, should have control over other’s people’s rights; over their rights to wed, over their rights to choose, over their rights to live freely. How can I vote for a party which once led a crusade of civil rights, Abolishing Slavery and promoting equality between citizens of every ethnicity; how can I vote for a party, who was once heralded for its groundbreaking human rights issues, when they are prompted similar circumstance, they turn an eye.
I’ll end with a clip from Lincoln, where Tommy Lee Jones’ character, Thaddeus Stevens, a Radical politician, even for his time, and representative of the state of Pennsylvania, and one of the most powerful men in congress, and yes. he was a Republican. Take some Notes.
I couldn’t find the whole clip, so watch these two back to back: