There are two taboo subjects ...Religion and Politics. Some people say this is a country founded on religious principles and I respect your right to believe whatever it is you wish to. However, in the words of Jimmy Jeffries..."Please know you are wrong."
This is a country of laws. These laws sometimes get bastardized when the populous and politicians start ignorantly screwing with them. Having said that, let’s look at a couple of issues because I have a bone to pick with the anointed one named Obama.
Controversial Subject #1 - Gay Marriage
Those for it say it’s a question of discrimination and equality for consenting adults. Those against say it’s a religious union and question what is next. Man marries beast? Polygamy?
For me this issue is simple. People can legally wed without evoking God already. Just hop over to City Hall and a Justice of the Peace will perform a perfectly legal marriage that is fully recognized by the Government. Out goes that argument.
If two consenting adults want to express their love through marriage, then I say fill your boots. A man marrying a goat is not two consenting adults. One is devoid of a little thing we call rational thought. Strike two.
Now Polygamy is against the law for the simple reason that in a 50/50 society (men to woman based on statistical probability involving “x’s” and “y’s” in our scientific world) it provoked unhealthy competition and too often the defenceless young were preyed upon. It is rightfully illegal and has no place in this argument in much the same way pedophilia is out of context. Gays only want to marry one pre-existing gay adult that is already a percentage of an existing population.
Ok so the end result is the Gay Marriage issue is clear and the law should be a green-light, right? President Obama says no to marriage, but ok to civil unions. This is code talk for “having it both ways.” That is the same stance as McCain has and it’s bullshit.
Either you are Pat Roberts and believe it’s an abomination and should be deterred and in no way coddled or sanctioned...or you are a person that believes homosexuality is genetic and exists in all species of the animal kingdom and therefore already an integral part of actual society and should not be discriminated against.
Controversial Subject #2 - Abortion
Does life begin at conception or not? For God fearing people the answer is yes. They don’t base it on the child merely vacating the vaginal canal after an arbitrary gestation period. Lots of babies can be born massively premature and survive…heck the heart beats in the first few weeks. To them pregnant is pregnant and life is life and conception is the religious answer. To end such life on some other arbitrary timeline after conception is purposeful death to a living soul, plain and simple.
See religious people who are for women’s rights don’t like to hear this. They like to think they can be both religious and pro-choice in dysfunctional harmony. They cannot. If you believe “a woman’s body is hers to make choices” negates the religious implications...you are wrong.
Religion is conception and if a woman’s body is housing two separate souls then they are both equal. Life is life and equal is equal. Don’t fight with me people, I don’t make the rules. If you are religious then I take what the Pope says over the lady with the placard at a rally when it comes to things regarding religion. It’s kinda what he does. Don’t like it? Stop saying you are religious.
To say you are religious, but do not believe conception is life, then you are right back to the arbitrary calendar and becoming your own theologian, in which case you aren’t religious. You’re just some person with a round peg and a square hole banging away. You can’t have it both ways.
Now if you are not religious, then you can make the argument about a conscious state and when a being becomes self-aware. This outlook facilitates abortion and termination of a non-sentient being. This is where I land, and if anything, there should be even more abortions when I look around. When Monty Python sang “Every Sperm is Sacred” they had their tongues planted firmly in cheeks people.
Now Obama says he personally believes abortion is wrong due to his religion, but is willing to bend to the will of the people...which is pro-abortion. This is bullshit. If he truly believes these helpless and defenceless souls are being improperly killed, then he is a despicable human being. If you don’t stand up for what you say you believe in and the victim is innocence itself...then you my friend are an asshole.
I don’t think he is despicable or an asshole actually. I believe he’s full of shit and playing lip service to a religious constituency. He is trying to placate both sides and play politics with something that is...or is not. Guess that makes him more of an “opportunistic dick” then?
I don’t believe what a Bush or Palin believe...but I respect it. They have the convictions of their beliefs and I fully appreciate the logic. Therefore, their vigour in defence of life is not only acceptable and logical given their superstitious starting position, but laudable. So I do respect them, but they are of course wrong.
Looks like I ran out of room in this blog. There are so many issues left like War, Gun Control, Debt, Role of Government...I could go on all day. Let me know your thoughts and let the debate flow!
The Democrats have had the White House, the Congress and the Senate for 6 months now. There are more troops engaged in war now, the deficit is jumping leaps and bounds, rendition is still happening, bills still have earmarks and get passed without readings....at least he closed Gitmo. Oh wait that takes a year because 250 people are so hard to move. *tongue in cheek*
Democrats really are the new Republicans. Truth is...there never was much of a difference.
See you next week Top of the Food Chain!
-Life is complicated and far from perfect but it is still great
Those that think the US has a two-party system are mistaken. The real decisions are not "should we pull out of Afghanistan or Iraq in 18 months or 36 months," it is whether or not they should be there in the first place. Or "should we give AIG, GM, BofA, Citi, etc. $10 billion or $15 billion?" No, the real question is, should government support failing industries with tax payer dollars, effectively privatizing profits and socializing losses?
ReplyDeleteOf course you know I agree with both of your positions on the subjects above, but I like the way you laid it out in a logical format (if, then). I genuinely think that future generations are going to look back at us and wonder how the hell we could ever justify not allowing gays to marry. It's utterly ridiculous, in my opinion.
I agree with you largely on issue 2. Albeit, in spite of his personal convictions, Bush didn’t do diddly to boost the Pro-Lifers cause, so by his abstention he clearly never went near that third rail and sat that one out. So in that, I don’t see much diff with Obama.
ReplyDeleteSilly as it sounds, because it is not life or death, issue 1 is more complicated. I agree a man can’t marry a goat. There is no consent there. But the slippery slope argument has some merit. If we truly are nations of law, then laws can and are changed as you point out. Laws are easier to change if there is precedent.
One of the religious arguments is that marriage is for procreation and gays can’t. However, adoption is an option and we are seeing more and more. Kids need love. Period. As Harvey Milk said, he grew up with Hetero parents, siblings and friends. Hetero teachers, everyone he knew. Yet he was gay. You are either gay or you are not. Kids are resilient, understanding, and adaptable. Sounds like a family to me. Better than the fate that faces many unwanted children. And the laws are on the side of those that want to fully participate in society. Of course they should be able to marry. As you say, fill your boots!
But…I am surprised you threw Polygamy under the bus so quick. Keeping aside child brides, you say “If two consenting adults want to express their love through marriage…” What about 5? Or ten? To me, what’s the difference? Religious freedom is there in law. 50/50? We are more like 51/49 as far as male/female breakdown. And men have a lower life span and die in more accidents than women (often in procreation years). I suppose if society went on for 10,000 more years….women might outnumber men 2-1. Gives new meaning to the words “their just aren’t any good men out there”.
Connecting polygamy with pedophilia as a non-starter is not right either. Again, same with the goat, sex with a child lacks the needed consent.
Is a man with 5 brides is disgusting? I don’t know. But for the bible thumpers, homosexual is. Speaking of tongue in cheek, ever seen the Little Britain when the weight loss character has Rosie O’Donnell? He/She is just being rude and Rosie tells her she’s disgusting. Reply, “I’m disgusting! You’re the one that puts your tongue in another woman’s vagina!”
I guess it is all about perception. Just throwing that argument out there.
On the contrary, Bush did everything he could to fuse church and state. Leaving aside his right wing appointments to the Supreme Court he empowered The Church in every speech and every decision.
ReplyDeleteHe can't bring about the actual case to reach the courts but he sure set the table.
As far as Polygamy. Throughout civilization where there was prevalent polygamy there was incursion to the defenceless young as scouting for potential became the norm. So to me it is proven to be harmful if embraced fully. Whereas same sex marriage has nothing to do with that.
Look, Bush made his religious views well known. But in either case, he never introduced a Federal statute that would either 1. make abortion illegal…or 2. make marriage between only one man and one woman. He left both up to the States. For all Obama’s talk of equal rights for all under the law for all, he is not wading in either. All I’m saying is in that, they are largely the same. Both have the power to enact their own “change” and neither did or will. All the rest is talk.
ReplyDeleteAs far as Polygamy goes, I’m not using the argument in the Warren Jeffs context. I am looking at it in the Bill, Barb, Nicky and Margene sense. If gays can be married by virtue of equal rights under the law and recognized as a “family” with adoption supplanting the procreation argument against, what is stopping responsible adults of the age of consent that have made a clear choice from taking their unions to the courts? Would they not argue that:
1.they are raising their own biological children in a family setting
2.they are parents to the other children they are raising - either their spouse’s biological children (step-children), or the children of their other partner’s that call them mommy (like an adoption). In both cases at least one parent is biological.
3.their religion recognizes plurality and they should have same rights under the law due to religious freedom.
4.in the case of the women, they are “married” to both the man (hetero) and the other wives (same sex relationship).
All I am saying is that this group of people could make a compelling argument for the Government sanctioning their unions as “marriage” by virtue of marriage being extended to include same sex couples.
That is my slippery slope argument.