Log in

No account? Create an account
Vasaris, the Fuzzy Dragon
.:: ..::. .::..:...... .::

March 2014
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31

Vasaris, the Fuzzy Dragon [userpic]

I'm honored, someone actually read and commented on my previous gay-marriage entry.

*gets all starry-eyed and makes google-eyes at sabonsai*

Which led to another rant, which led to me making said rant a new journal entry because... well, it got long. And went a couple of places I wasn't really expecting.

sabonsai commented on my previous marriage rant:

...Though I honestly think that Mr. Card has a better position than most. I disagree with his position, but since he believe marriage is mainly to have kids, I have a bit more respect for him. At least he's willing to admit that by his definition of marriage, Aunt Ruth and Uncle Bob should have never gotten married, as they don't have any kids. Most anti-gay-marriage people will insist that gay shouldn't marry because they can't have kids, but don't hold the same position to any straight couples that also fall in that catagory. (Infertiles, those that choose not to, those that have had the opperation preventing them, et cetera.)

I have to agree that his base premise of marriage=procreation at least has a certain logical backing, but I find the notion repugnant.

Procreation/children being the sole reason for legal marriage is an absolutely terrifying concept to me. I do not want the government deciding that if I'm not fertile I shouldn't be able to get married or proclaiming my desire to be childfree to be against some sort of statute. It touches on all of the things that I see women having fought for in the issue of reproductive rights, whether it's contraception, abortion, abstinence, or continual pregnancy. My body is just that, mine, and I will have children or not at my own discretion. Joining my life and/or finances with someone else is not, could not, and will never be based solely on the idea of whether or not we could have children together.

During the last century or so we have grown into the popular notion that people should come together with *love.* That it should not be, at heart, an issue of property, children, or *shudder* social position.

Love is a powerful motivator, encouraging people to protect and cherish one another (ideally, at least) and while property, children and other factors cannot be completely divorced from the formation of a household, it's much more important to me that a home be filled with love than any other thing.

That might be considered a spiritual argument, no better than those who say that "God says NO!" And, in truth, someone who objected to it on that basis would be right. Just because I think that the love that one person feels for another should be cherished doesn't mean that everyone does.

But just as saying 'It should just be about love' is not a valid basis to accede to marriage between any two people, the phrase "God says NO!" is not a valid argument against allowing it. Neither attitude has any reason to be present in the creation of a legal entity.

The only thing that should matter in the eyes of the government is that two people have chosen to share finances/debts and that they should be allowed the privileges (and penalties) accorded to those who choose to do so. So long as the individuals in question pay their taxes and participate in our society without disturbance, why should the bureaucracy care? One would think that they've got better things to do with their time.

As private organizations, churches can deny anyone the sacraments they offer. As private individuals, people can refuse to attend marriage celebrations of people they despise. As evangelists, anyone can *try* and convince me that homosexuality is wrong and that gays are somehow sub- or non-human and thus not subject to being allowed what I see as a basic human right.

Those are the actions of private individuals exercising their rights.

But when churches try and legislate the denial of their sacraments, when people try and legislate that *no one* attend the marriage celebrations of people they despise, when evangelists try to write their hate and prejudice into the laws of my country I am horrified.

It goes beyond feminism, in that requiring fertility and the intent to procreate violates my rights to my own body. It goes beyond my First Amendment rights to be allowed the freedom of a religion that has no objection to homosexuality. It becomes an issue of blind prejudice and hatred, of knee-jerk reactions, and the herd mentality of people who will not see.

It becomes an issue of fanatacism... of the will to blind oneself to any other options, to deafen oneself to the words of any other speaker, to inure oneself to the feelings and pain of any being construed to be one of THEM, whomever THEY are, be thy gay or straight, Muslim or Christian, decadent Westerners or spartan Middle Easterners.

The hatreds are no different.

And they are no less frightening.

Current Mood: contemplativecontemplative

I agree absolutely. Plus, Mr. Card's platform is easily refuted by pointing out that with the world population at what it is today, the world would probably benefit if some people didn't have ten kids.

Yeah. But in terms of legislation, another place I'm somewhat afraid to go to because of where it could lead. Although I have to agree wholeheartedly on the 'the planet could use a few fewer mouths to feed.'

Then again, the most powerful thing in preventing children is women's education, since studies show the more education a woman has the less likely she is to have children or to have large numbers of them.