For the most part, my blog is place where I poke fun at popular tv and talk about the funny stuff my kids do. Why? Because it's not something that's going to offend people. Maybe some people are offended that I think "one f" Jef is a few consonants short of a full name on the Bachelorette, but I can handle people mocking my choice in television programs to watch. I try to shy away from giving my opinions of the president, educational policy, or social issues. I avoid these issues because there is no good way to have a logical debate with anyone about these things over the internet. Look, you're all smart people. You have be, you read my blog, right? You've all formed decisions based on the information at hand on who to vote for, what laws are just and which laws are just stupid, and what resources we should or should not be using. And you know what? You're all wrong. Just ask someone. Thing is, you're all completely right as well. Just ask the guy on the other side of the street. It's maddening the way people feel like everyone has to act or think or believe the exact same things as everyone else. Do I believe in God? I want to believe in God. I think the world would be a better place if there was a God, and therefore I believe in him. Plus, I am comforted by the idea that my existence doesn't end when my body dies. I also think the world would be a better place if Sasquatch, the Loch Ness Monster, and a remote island in the South Pacific that has yet to be discovered has dinosaurs living on it exist, therefore I prefer to believe in them as well. Am I right? Sure, watch the Discovery Channel tonight. Am I wrong? Absolutely. Watch the Science Network tomorrow night.
But I am going to tackle one social issue: Gay Marriage. Actually, I cringe to use the term "Gay Marriage." Let's just say Marriage. If you listen to Rush Limbaugh and the like these days, it would seem that the institution of marriage is under attack. Marriage itself means many different things to many different people, so to try to define it in one way for all of mankind is incredibly pigheaded. According to wikipedia, some early forms of marriage were created to secure exclusive "sexual access" rights for a man to his spouse in order to confirm his paternity of offspring. Some people get married for religious reasons. Some people get married for financial reasons. Some people get married to allow them or their spouse to stay in the country. Yet, if you asked someone on the street what marriage means to them, it'd probably have something to do with loving another person.
I also cringe when people who are anti-marriage say "I don't understand why you got married, it's just a piece of paper." Not to me it's not, and I tend to believe that anyone who got married views it as more than a piece of paper to themselves as well. You anti-marriage people are absolutely right that you can love someone without getting married, but for you to try to pass judgement on what marriage means to anyone other than yourself is just plain arrogant.
I didn't propose to ensure my access to heaven. I didn't propose for a tax benefit, and it certainly wasn't out of a need to establish some sort of "sexual monopoly." Not to me it's not, and I got married because I love Rachel, and because I wanted some sort of ceremony to confirm this commitment I was happily making...and that's what the ring on my finger symbolizes to me. It doesn't symbolize any sort of ownership or control or anything along those lines. It symbolizes the fact that I've made a commitment to my wife that I intend to keep for as long as possible. And that's what it means to a whole lot of people around the world....even (gasp) GAY people!
Now I'm not speaking for all people, and I certainly don't mean to speak for the homosexual community, but I'm guessing that the issue with gay marriage isn't that Conservatives don't want gay people to be allowed to see a loved one in a hospital or be allowed to file their taxes jointly. I suspect that for most homosexual people that have expressed a desire to get married, these aren't their reasons either. So, then, why object to it? Religion - the whole "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" garbage. You know what else the Bible says? It says that that women should submit to their husbands, who in turn should provide for their wives. You don't see a bunch people talking about how women with successful careers that aren't fixing their husband sandwiches every time he asks for one are attacking the institution of marriage. My college degree wouldn't suddenly be cheapened if Oregon State decided to give a stand of Old Growth Douglas Fir trees honorary degrees, and my driver's license wouldn't be less valid if an exceptional Chimpanzee passed the driver's test at the DMV, so why would my marriage be devalued if a couple of guys decided to tie the knot?
Another thing that I remember from my experience getting married is Father John expressly saying that our marriage was between three people - Rachel, myself, and God. If that's the case, why is Rush Limbaugh or anyone else trying to barge his way into the marriage of two women in Vermont? I'm hesitant to applaud the President for saying something that seems so blatantly obvious to me. My first reaction really was "why hasn't he (or any other president) done this sooner?" I don't think this was a decision he just now came to. I'll bet he supported gay marriage four years ago too, but couldn't publicly because he wanted to make sure he got elected before taking a stand on this. A great many people are going to base their vote for President solely on this one issue, which is absolutely terrifying to me. "So what if this guy wants to sell the Dakotas to Canada? The other guy wants to let gay people get MARRIED!" I could go on an on about partisan politics and the general public's inabilty to allow our elected officials to compromise on even the smallest of issues, but that's another blog.
If I were President (and thank the stars I never will be), I'd try to establish marriage as an agreement between two (or more) people to share their lives together. If you decide to split up and can't figure out how to divvy up the stuff, it's all liquidated and split 50/50. Of course I'd fail, because the other party would have to block my proposal on the grounds that they didn't come up with it themselves. Crap, looks like I'm getting into that other blog after all.......
One last thing. I apologize if I offended anyone. If I did offend you, please let me know why. I'm not going to be offended in the least if you disagree with me. I just ask that you be level headed about your response. If it's not, I'm going to delete it and pretend I never saw it.
Whatever happened to the separation of church and state? If a politician's religion dictates some policy position then they need to stay out of it.
ReplyDeleteLegal Marriage should be recognized between entities capable of informed consent. Marriage (as recognized by the state) doesn't require and should not have any religious connection. Get married any way you like be it a religious or secular ceremony or maybe no ceremony at all. The only requirement to be recognized by the state should be to file the right paperwork (the "marriage" contract).
If some day there is an entity around not thought of as a "person" but still capable of informed consent then sure, marry away.
The dumbest arguments are the "slippery slope" ones. A dog, goldfish, car whatever is not capable of informed consent. The people making those arguments need a dope-slap.
And.. I think a smart chimp probably could pass the Oregon Drivers test..