Friday, May 11, 2012

The whole "gay rights" thing...

Oh for the love of snot, if they want divorces and child custody battles, let them freaking have them.

At the end of this rainbow isn't a pot of gold.  It's the next several months of arguing about what goes on in other people's bedrooms.

O... M... Gosh....

I am getting pretty sick of the whole "gay rights" thing.

Not that I don't think gays should have rights.  They definitely should.  Just because many religious texts forbid being gay doesn't mean that people don't have civil rights outside of churches, mosques and temples.

If they want a tax deduction for living together (which, get real, is what we're talking about: the legal rights of marriage, not the ceremony), fine.

In fact - and this might sound out there - it might be reasonable to establish a "civil union" between people NOT having sex but who, for example, are jointly caring for children, e.g. two aunts or a brother and sister, etc.  Help make the relationship between them and their families more solid in the legal sense.

Now, I honestly believe the Bible forbids some types of sex, even in the New Testament.  Specifically, I don't think the Bible is cool with anal sex.  That's it: anal sex.  Between a man and a man or a woman and a man, I don't think the Bible is cool with that.

HOWEVER.   I am not going to run around and impose what I see as my religion's sexual mores on other people.

Why?  Because I am American.  So, if you like anal sex, fine.  I think it's an icky thing, but if that's what you're into, there are freakier things.

HOWEVER.  I AM an American and my country is in serious trouble with serious things.  For example, what happens if we have another massive banking collapse?  Is there any plan for that?  I know they haven't fixed anything and we can't afford to bail them out from it again.  So what, pray tell, do we plan to do about that?

Now, are human rights serious?  Yes, of course.  They're serious.

But equivocating between the types of human rights that allow two people of the same gender to marry and the human right not to, for example, be a child soldier or to live or to have a job is not cool.

I'd also suggest that even though human rights are serious and important, empires have never collapsed due to human rights violations.  Rome was luvin' the human rights violations.  However, fiscal irresponsibility and currency devaluation did, in fact, play a major role in the decline of Rome.

So!  There we be.  Fiddling around with gay/oral/anal sex and what goes on in the bedrooms of others.

Bully for the US of A: when we can't find a solution to serious problems, we get hyperfocused on the goings-ons in the bedrooms of others.

7 comments:

  1. It only really matters when you ARE the "other".

    ReplyDelete
  2. As Jefferson said of issues with religious overtones generally, "It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

    Do what you want, as long as you don't scare the horses.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "In fact - and this might sound out there - it might be reasonable to establish a "civil union" between people NOT having sex but who, for example, are jointly caring for children, e.g. two aunts or a brother and sister, etc. Help make the relationship between them and their families more solid in the legal sense."

    Odd that, in the Army, a 2LT, whose mother is terminally ill and divorced, can have her mother covered by her daughter's insurance or that the minor sister of a CPT, who is her legal guardian after the death of their parents,can be covered but that either of these things would be hard to arrange under most employee welfare benefit plans in the private sector.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Totally agree on "scaring the horses": I don't see anything in the Constitution which bars it, they want it, so what's the big deal?

    A bigger problem, which you touch on, is that "marriage" isn't about "family," and responsibilities to family seem to take a back burner. I didn't know that the military offered that level of support network for people who need it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yes, marriage, especially historically, has been about property, not passion.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Roger, true. But it's also traditionally been less about the nuclear family and more about The Family - the extended family.

    The nuclear family, imho, was a convenient prop created by the media to suggest that we could happily leave our "big families" behind, making the American worker more mobile. I don't think that's right and healthy, either.

    People were living in more isolated "nuclear" families, so the media reinforced this story on TV. Self-perpetuating civic myth.

    ReplyDelete