Friday, April 27, 2007

Gay marriage is evil!!! Hate crime laws are anti-Christian!!! Stop the blasphemy!!! Dogs and cats living together!!!

(Well, to be fair, we've had dogs and cats living together for many years now - and quite happily, I might add ... depending on whom you ask ... )

Quite a few thoughts swimming around in my head, but not enough time right now to do any real writing, so instead I'm soliciting opinions (I hope to God there's a Republican or someone conservative who can offer a differing - although logical - point of view here, because I'm afraid I'm preaching to the choir again ... ). I'll be posting in more depth on each of these after I get some feedback:
  • Hate crimes laws. If a crime is committed out of hatred for a particular ethnic group/race/religion/gender/sexual orientation - should it be punished more severely than an "ordinary" crime? Why or why not? Is adding sexual orientation to hate crime laws "special treatment" or justifiable?
  • "Gay marriage". "Domestic Partnerships". "Civil Unions". Equality? Special rights? The end of traditional marriage and an affront to society? How would any of these terms change our current structure of recognizing relationships as far as the current civil rights granted to people are concerned? Do same-sex couples really need this right/protection/special treatment (whatever your favorite term is)?
  • Continuing the civil union theme - Rudy, Rudy, Rudy. Mr. Giuliani has changed his position regarding civil unions and is now against them (no Waffle Houses out here in the Pacific Northwest, unfortunately). Umm ... wasn't he pro-civil unions a while back? Now, I'm not saying that only Republican candidates let their opinions be swayed by public opinion ... but is there some chance that he's pandering to the ultra-conservative Right by making this change in his beliefs? Is he channeling Mitt Romney? Should a politician - regardless of whether or not he or she running for President - say what their base wants to hear, or say what they believe - no matter what the ramifications?
  • Apparently same-sex unions/marriage/domestic partnerships/can openers is my theme: If you do not believe in same sex (whatever you want to call the "union"), why not? What rights should same-sex couples have? What rights should they not have? And, most importantly - why should/shouldn't they?

Okay, I'm done for now. I do have opinions to state (HEY!!! Stop it. I see you rolling your eyes over there ... and yes I hear that snickering ... ) on these items, but I'd rather hear your thoughts before spouting them off.


jo said...

Loved the video. I saw it before and passed it on to a friend.

Hate crimes: Yes, sexual orientation should be added. Punished more severely than which ordinary crimes? Some ordinary crimes don't have strong enough punishment.

Civil unions, and yes, same sex people need some rights here. Not special rights, but the same rights afforded to heterosexual couples.

Politicians: I think I'd faint if any stayed true to their own beliefs and voted their hearts.

Cuz, you know I don't know enough to argue any of these. But I always enjoy reading what your faithful readers have to say.

Fantasy Writer Guy said...

hate crimes: A society can only support a certain percentage of their population through a corrections process at any given time. Talk of increased punishment without balancing off whatever should be punished lesser has no merit. Do corrections systems even work? I haven't done the research but I can theorize many reasons why it wouldn't. The matter seems arbitrary and pointless to me.

gay marriage:

I find everything I hear about this debate staggeringly ridiculous.

First off - there's nothing the least bit natural about permanent monogamy, let alone marriage. The evidence of this is overwhelming to anyone courageous enough to use their own powers of observation as their primary learning tool instead of what your parent, priest or teacher told you - as is, by the way - the utter absurdity of religon. Every 'sin' is grounded in practices that were inadvisable to human survival in
one ancient time or another and the invention of mystic icons was the perfect way to control an uneducated population for their own good.

Cows and shellfish were never divine. They simply carried disease at times. Homosexuality threatened to end procreation thus killing the human race (so it seemed when they didn't understand the natural limitation of its prevalence). Would the church today still work the same way it would recognize over-population being the far greater threat and repress heterosexuality instead.

But 'church' has become obsolete as a survival tool and exists for the sake of its own greed on corrupt perpetuation of archaic mysticism that still controls the unwitting masses because the average human is far stupider than humans in general are percieved to be, given the apparent marvels and sophistication of our times but which are really only the product of the elite.

Question is - is this all a bad thing? All this deception, all this illusion, all this protection of the weak and stupid, all this sheep-hearding? It makes for a comfortable existence after all. Until times like this - when you start asking questions that we can't seem to agree on and you start to get an inkling that maybe not all is as it seems in this world and maybe we're living in a sort of Matrix of our own making and do you really want the blue pill or the red?

I've probably said too much or not enough but a man asking for opinions instead of shelling them out is a rare find, good sir. I couldn't resist!

On a more practical level: No government can claim control of language. It's the domain of the public. If you sign a document with your lover and you say that you are married and your friends call you 'married' and your family calls you 'married' then you sir, are married. How relevent is it what your politicians legislate? How much does it really affect your living experience?

Gay marriage is fully instated in Canada but that isn't freeing anyone here from oppression. Hell, come here for a vacation and get married. There's no restriction. Oh but be warned - you have to live here two years to get a divorce. That's a long time to live in the snow with someone you hate!