Originally Posted by bonsaltron
This wasn't written specifically for this forum but it's not-so-directly geared at conservative religion vs gay marriage.
We've all heard the "gays getting hitched violates the sanctity of marriage" school of thought argument for the banning of such legislation in recent years. Strictly keeping religion out of mind out of sight, I've thought long and hard in determining my problems with this logic. I don't quite buy into the credibility of this particular two-cents.
Nowadays, in some states, over 50% of marriages end in divorce. Over 50%!?!?! Those are Al Gore numbers ;-P
More than half the time? If the Seattle Mariners lose a little more than half their games this season, I'd HARDLY call that a sacred season (Griffeyyy...One time/PlzHolddd).
So here's my question...
Where were all these arguers 10, 15 years ago when the divorce rate was at a slender 20, 25%? Ya know, before it put on the lbs. Where was the push to abolish divorce?
If you're expending soooo much energy on protecting the sanctity of marriage, surely a climbing divorce rate seems like an appropriate radar blip as well?
...Don't call me Shirley...
Well I think I can explain this doublestandard; divorce is truly blind.
Every minute of every day someone is getting a divorce, and "someone" meaning one of any religion, any gender, any ethnicity... EVERYONE IS GETTING A DIVORCE. Well... except gays of course...we wouldn't want them de-purifying the subject, now would we.
Ya see, it's easy to be against people who are different from you when they fit into a nice universal category. A slur, if you will. Open a ****in' history book, thumb any time period in man's existence and you'll see those getting shafted at the time matched a stereotype or two. Color, orientation, petname... that's why it'll take some time for gays to be left alone.
Meanwhile, divorcees will never be bothered.
And why is it so wrong exactly? They want to get married, presumably in love, wanting the standard marriage, based on sex, lies and unrealistic expectations. It's the same flavor as a straight relationship when you really look at the basic picture.
Same idea, different tools.
If I eat a delicious bowl of macaroni and cheese with a fork and spoon, I'm eating it to get full and at the end of the day it'll be a Kraft-tastic meal. So what's the difference if I eat it with a fork and spoon...or fork and fork...or spoon and spoon...?
It's like comparing innings, when the whole ****ing thing is supposed to be about the final score in the first place!
I have no problems with gay people. I've got no reason to muster up grudges on entire frequencies of the human race... the New York Rangers have got that slot filled just fine... I fail to understand this argument that there's a tainting of marriage's principals.
It's just a modern deviation of an old tradition... just because times change, it doesn't mean variations in rituals and pastimes are being attacked by some virus.
(What's he talking about? What's 'modern deviation?')
~Ok, I'll bring religion in just for an example or two~
When a priest offers you bread as you eat the metaphoric carbs, that's 21st century bread. That's in all probability grocery store bread. That means there's preservatives in that bread.
Does that mean the tradition has been tainted? It's been stripped o' sanctity? After all, bread ingredients were strictly a certain way when the Newb Testament was written.
No! Stop scapegoating this inconsistent argument for you're intolerance of homosexuals. Stop this selfish fear of change. There are second-class citizens out there!
What about Zionists? Aren't those the religions where one has to make holy pilgrimage to the holy land in the MiddleEast once in their lifetime? Fine... but does that mean taking an airplane or driving a car on the trip disqualifies you? Wouldn't that, by the gay-measuring stick, make the pilgrimage any less graceful???
We used to lynch condemned meanies in front of the town for entertainment. Now we do it quietly with gas chambers, needles and Ol' Sparky. It aint good, it aint bad, it's just modern deviation.
I doubt some God hates you taking your kid to the doctor, just because the only healthcare in holy writ was miracles and leaches.
Modern deviation, not the apocalypse. Get over yourselves, please.
And please please please don't get me started on 'Our Founding Fathers would disapprove.' ... Listen, it's amend means change. Thus amendments. Our Founding Fathers new times would change and the law of the land could be made to change with the times. ~~~And I love the founding fathers' advice on governmental philosophy, but definitely not their racial or sexist beliefs. Neither should you.~~~
Sigh...
It's the same reason there are a dozen bad words for gay, black, Jewish, female... and there's not a single remote slur designated to "divorcee."
It's why there's no picketers outside municipal buildings, harassing marriage license bailouts....
...Because it's easy to accept change when it's on your terms, but even easier to condemn when it's not.
Please leave gays alone and stop impeding the radical theory that Americans can coexist.