Tuesday, May 26, 2009

It's EXACTLY the same...

I posted a link to this video this morning on my facebook page.

And I asked why they didn't run ads like this during the November election.

My roommate posted a response saying that
"they knew it would scare away the undecided and confused who at the very least had concluded prior to the election that they know they don't want to oversimplify and compare discriminating the definition of marriage, with previous issues of discrimination that they felt were morally incorrect. ... The other side already realizes that gay activists want to compare marriage equality with ethnic, age, and gender equality. The gut reaction from the undecided person is - well wait a second there - not really the same thing. ... If the West Hollywood Presbyterian Church was to perform what they want to call a gay marriage - recognized solely by it's church - it can. The state will not stop the ceremony. ... no religious freedom is being interfered with. A church can say anything is anything inside it's own walls. If I want to say Murder is okay at LadderDayScroddy church, doesn't mean the state is interfering with my civil liberties by making it illegal.The state and church are separate. It just so happens that American values align with Judeo-Christian principals."

It is EXACTLY like gender and race discrimination, because BOTH types of discrimination had their origins based in religion, and had a majority of Americans in sound agreement of said discrimination.  Here's a quote from an article I read online:

Christians believed that the African people were a God cursed inferior race. According to Lorenzo Johnston Greene ‘The interweaving of Christianity and white supremacy is considered a defining quality of Southern slavery. Yet this also happened in the North. Not only was slavery sanctioned by the God of the Old Testament, it was a positive duty of his chosen people in the New World, because it brought the Gospel to the pagans of Africa. Thus could a Rhode Island elder rejoice, without any apparent consciousness of irony, when a slave ship coasted in to the wharf, that “an overruling Providence has been pleased to bring to this land of freedom another cargo of benighted heathens to enjoy the blessings of a Gospel dispensation.’ --The Negro in Colonial New England, 1620-1776. 

Women were seen as “inferior” because they had “smaller brains” and men carried “the priesthood” ---literally, the power of God.  And besides, women were responsible for the fall of man, too—After all, Eve ate the fruit then dragged her husband down with her—it was a sound and widely held belief… which was later proved false.

Racial and gender discrimination originated because of people’s “gut reaction” to things that they KNEW were right.  It was “the white man’s burden” to treat Africans and women that way.

Not unlike how anti-equality groups position themselves as being “morally correct” and “compassionate” because they are making it harder for families to form (mind you, the families that will form regardless) with no justification than religion and the traditions that were based off of said religion.  They are seeking to demonstrate that same-sex marriage is inferior and “different” and therefore feel justified—nay, smug in their “defense of marriage”, because they tolerate homosexuals so much that they have benevolently created a second-class status of “civil marriage”.

In response to the second part about a church being free to perform any ceremony they choose, in that regard, he is right. But the key point that's missing is that the state is recognizing the marriages of, say the Mormon Church, which uses a unique ceremony and marries people for “time and all eternity”—this is not the same marriage that is performed by the Catholic Church, for example, which marries people with a different ceremony and only “’til death do you part".  The state recognizes all the variations of marriage between the differing faiths—so why not the variation of two men or two women?  Why is the 24 hour marriage of two drunk morons in Vegas of more value than the the committed fidelity of a same-sex couple?

Leave personal feelings aside and look to the heart of the issue. People are being treated unfairly—people who pay taxes and have kids and serve on PTA boards are having their families attacked by people who are “uncomfortable” with a certain use of a word!  It’s absurd, because people won’t stop calling their marriages “marriages” because of Prop 8.  My husband will not become my “partner” because of prop 8.   Everything that people are fighting against is already here, so what are you fighting?

Mark my words—50 years from now, people will look back on this fight with the same disbelief that people look on the ERA amendments and the civil rights movement and wonder “how did people ever believe that discrimination was okay?”


  1. just wanted to let you know that i really enjoy this music video and what it has to say.

  2. Not the same...
    A lot was said in that response, so I think I'll reply to aspects that stuck out to me in tid-bits. I'm at work so I can't write an epic-

    "People's Gut Reaction" to racial and gender discrimination - You point similarities in how people justified discrimination. This doesn't necessarily mean that their gut reaction is going to be wrong with every issue. Yes, anybody who justifies racial discrimination with the bible is a complete moron - and that is evil. I won't deny Christians have distorted the truth in it's history. Still, that does not mean that they are wrong with everything. One of the major purposes of religious values is to discriminate - so we need to ask why we discriminate. Is there every justification to discriminate? Where do we draw the line? Is one man + one woman a pie in the sky idea?

    The Morman vs Catholic debate - I think this is bologna. The state has no specific recognition of the various religious differences. It recognizes what they have in common - 1 man+ 1 woman.

    Two drunk morons in Vegas - I think that's morally wrong of course. Fools will always rush in and abuse marriage - which is the greater issue. This goes back to the classic lesson though - two wrongs don't make a right. I'd rather ask - what can we do to try to limit or stop people who are under the influence from entering into a binding contract... Rather than say - well if this is allowed - why isn't this allowed? I'd rather get to the heart of the problem.

    "Leave personal feelings aside - Get to the heart of the matter"

    I think the heart of the matter - despite what you feel is that you want to change centuries old religious and American values and how the public defines concepts of love and marriage because your feelings and lifestyle seem to have gotten in the way with your relationship with God and how he wants you to live your life. This is more than your friend accepting you. It's the ultimate acceptance - to be equal in supreme law.

    Forgive my flawed and inanimate analogy, but I feel most Americans feel you are building a giant Costco next to an old white church on the small town green build in 1695 - designated a historic place. No need to point out the flaws in that - it's just a sentiment..

    As far as 50 years from now - people like me - if alive- will be apathetic if the change you feel will happen happens. Why even bother trying anymore...when such drastic change is inevitable. But never mind me - this doesn't affect me. It's my kids - and their kids - and their best friends - they will be even more confused about love than our generation is - the concepts of what love and marriage used to mean will be all but forgotten. What is more - this issue is but a small piece of the puzzle - not the first piece or last piece. It's not that I'd want to single out the idea of gay marriage - it just happens to be the hot button issue right now. Every single issue that confuses someone about love today - from courtship, embracing and understanding the opposite sex, dating, marriage - entering it, living with it - when divorce is acceptable, sexual intercourse, lust - it all is part of a greater web of problems - and every debate and discussion of any of the issues that are a part of it are worth it.

    You're right though - some ultra liberal teacher will probably agree with you when this is in the history books next to Monica Lewinsky/Bill Clinton Scandal, 9/11, and Obama's New Deal.

  3. With respect, I'm going to call BS on the last big paragraph just above. It seems to assume that being gay is something someone can be recruited to, and that the ranks of heterosexuals who'll want to marry will be decimated by allowing those pernicious gays to marry too because all the straight boys & girls will jump the fence and start liplocking with their own gender.

    Sorry, I disagree. Being gay is what you're born with, not what you're persuaded to. 50 years from now people will still be falling in love and getting married and having families because they want to. It's natural. It won't ever stop. Love and marriage will still be around doing fine thank you very much. The only difference is that marriage will be a little more widely available than it is now, and more people will be able to enjoy its stabilizing benefits. What's wrong with that?

  4. Dear Inspector:

    Your response was interesting and contained a point I'd like to address. I did read the whole thing but the cultural aspect you mention is particularly relevant.

    When I was a little boy I read Plato's Symposium.

    When people think philosophy they tend to think about slogging through Kant's critiques and trying to understand dry, heady esoterica which isn't all that easy and not particularly entertaining.

    Plato is fun, even for kids. It's sorta like Nietzsche.

    Symposium is about love. These guys got together and tried to define love and figure out exactly what it was and was not. One of the theories had to do with our souls. If you ever wonder where Saul of Tarsus got the idea of the eternal soul, Plato was the source. He took Greek philosophy and mixed it in with Judaism and out popped Christianity.

    Anyway, Plato and his friends theorized that perhaps we were created as unified pairs, and that through the course of our physical development the soul is split. Most souls, said plato, were split on a male/female axis. So those of us (like me) who were split from the female parts of ourselves tend to seek out women. We embrace each other and are whole. Others split down a different axis, and these are the men and women who tend to embrace others.

    The text at the time was really fascinating because it's extant from what, 400 BCE? It's one of the founding documents of Western Civilization, and it's talking about homosexuals not as pariahs but as equals who exist and are accepted for who they are.

    Your point about it being a part of American culture is true; but there are many aspects of American culture that have changed and these changes turned out to be improvements. Think about denying the vote to anyone who doesn't own real property, for example. Denying the vote to females.

    I was married in British Columbia in 1995. In 2005 gays and lesbians were granted the right to marry. Society hasn't broken down. Canadian society has always been pretty fractious and dysfunctional, but this hasn't added any additional problems. My wife and I are still married. Nobody has recruited our kids, nor could they (they're both a couple of flaming heterosexuals -- so much so I worry a little bit). If marriage equality did real harm to society I would see it and I'd have no problem talking about it. The fact is that it doesn't. It simply levels out a little bit of the inherent inequality, and I find it a good thing.


  5. There is no proof that people are born gay - aka "a gay gene" I've been actively searching for studies that strongly prove that theory - as I think that would settle the matter - and there is not one study yet that proves it. The ones that have claimed to have found something big end up having the greatest weaknesses - sometimes ignoring other causes of large complexity in their conclusions - some of which I can see even in my own gay friends - and hey - I'm not a scientist, but no one needs to be one when science isn't doing much for either side right now. Neither of us can be right on this one - until science makes some leaps and bounds.

    As far as claiming that I'm claiming acceptance of gay marriage will cause people to be gay - I'm not directly saying that. Although I know for a fact that the gay club in high school lead some people astray - people who were simply curious and confused, who misunderstood their needs and relation to the opposite sex, and they realized years later they weren't gay. You can take that with a grain of salt - I'm not here to say that's everybody - but it was definitely some people. I can't make grand claims there - no one can. But the one general hypothesis I can make - and unfortunately I can't include British Columbia unril I know more - Americans are seriously confused about love. Plato. Religion. Pornography. Consumerism. Over-Progressivism, the failures of our parents' marriages as caused by the above, and the way Women behave in relation to all of the above (that's the ESSENTIAL part), make society forget why they have their genitalia. Sure - homosexuality has always existed. But I do think the numbers are rising - and not because they were ashamed to come out of the closet. (I often hear this argument) I'm including the closeted people in this assesment too. Simply, I feel more and more people are deciding to try out the other team - people who are confused.

    I have to go to work - I'd much rather explain this better if I had the time - but we're screwing around with culture - and it's not just gay marriage - it's many things - including porn - our perversions that are supposed to be opening our minds and making us more comfortable with our selves are actually confusing us and making people run away from who they really are. I need to expand on that -but I don't have time.