November 6th, 2008
|11:57 am - rant rant rant|
Like Dorothy to Oz, I have been caught up and dispatched by the whirlwind, to LA, although with (hopefully) fewer incidents of manslaughter.
Huh. My life, when it changes, seems to like doing so with a capital C. Not to mention I love this as another manifestation of the universe's bizarre and perverse sense of humor; I always said I'd never live in LA. Just like I said I'd never live in Seattle...
I don't have a permanent address quite yet, but I am no longer at Place of Grace in Lake Elsinore. So if you could hold any snail-mail items you might have been contemplating convincing the US Post Office to cart my way it would probably be better for all concerned. All my online haunts, however remain the same, as does my phone number if you have it.
In the other news of the moment, I am as hopeful as I've ever been in the last four years since I saw the election returns retaining the Torture King (aka GWB) for a second term. It remains to be seen how deep the damage and sabotage runs, and the current crew has enough time before they leave to plant some serious booby-traps and landmines. It also remains for Obama to follow through, and for those of us who elected him to follow through as well.
Sadly, Utah managed to buy the Prop 8 vote here in California, so us dangerous queer-folk won't be causing more wholesale havoc or destruction by daring to marry each other in pairs that don't include only one man and one woman. Which is pretty entertaining if you happen to know that the LDS Church, one of if not the major backer of the legislation, teaches that marriages in their perfected form, in the afterlife (aka Heaven), are plural - which is to say one man, 1+n women. Or wait, has that gotten conveniently revised a la the oh-so-timely revelation that Black men could hold the highest priesthood authority after all in 1978, when it became clear that ideas of racial equality were entrenched enough in the culture that they faced some serious backlash if they continued to disbar them for being the Children of Cain and so hereditary murderers. Talk about holding on to a resentment!
It's also funny because I am guessing that their campaign brought about the very horror it was promoted to prevent - educating children about gay marriage. You couldn't turn sideways without tripping over a pro-8 ad in the week prior to the election, all of them whinging about the schools teaching children about gay marriage if their bigotry wasn't enacted into law. (Yup, I am biased toward my right to marry who I want regardless of plumbing or chromosomal accident, go figure.) Me, as a child, seeing those ads would have immediately sparked my curiosity about what the hell the problem was with this so-called gay marriage.
I still haven't been able to get anyone to sit down and explain to me in words of one syllable EXACTLY what harm is being caused to hetero marriages by same-sex couples getting married instead of domestically partnered. I've gotten pettifoggery and doomsaying nonsense about the destruction of Traditional Marriage, with hand-waving and angstful expressions, but nothing concrete.
Besides, these people don't want to save Traditional Marriage anymore than I want to save the Traditional right of parents to have their daughter's clitoris cut out with a rusty knife in the name of keeping them chaste. Or am I confused and they really are working to return women who marry to the legal status of the man's personal property, stripped of franchise, freedom of movement, and the right to determine her own destiny. Traditional Marriage, if you've looked at it historically at all, is a civil contract ensuring property stays in the family and validating the legitimate heirs of same. (Am I remembering properly, celyn100?) Time was you couldn't even get married at church! Then they relented and started to let people use the porch; and then like the camel's nose worked their way inside and are now claiming not just to have been there all along but to have invented the institution! Ah well.
Finally I've decided I must class political beliefs with religious beliefs in terms of personal serenity. Some ideas in both categories go so far beyond defying logic that it seriously bothers me, and the only answer to that is just file it under 'People believe/espouse some weird stuff," or I'll burn out what's left of my brain trying to find some arcane angle from which the whole thing makes sense. Can't be done, so into the box it goes, along with Step 2 from the South Park underwear gnomes.
Naked? Why would you have to get naked to get baptized? I must have done it wrong.
OK, what's the source of the notorious nudist? The works of Josephus? (That's the only source I could come up with.)
Eastern Roman Empire Christian ascetics in those days typically got rid of their clothing as part of their overall effort to renounce worldliness.
Each time I ask, you provide beliefs without evidence. This should bother you.
Unless you are serious about the paintings, of course.
Are you couch surfing for now?
|Date:||November 7th, 2008 06:25 am (UTC)|| |
Actually we are in an Extended Stay hotel, for this first week at least...
|Date:||November 7th, 2008 02:08 pm (UTC)|| |
Not that I agree with it, but...
Having friends on both side of the equation, here's the best that I can come up with.
Below all the blather, I think the church is worried about being sued in one way or another. They want to believe the way they want and don't want to have the government tell them that they need to accept homosexuality. If all marriages are equal, then they may have to place adoptions with homosexual couples, etc. The might not even be able to refuse membership/temple attendance on that criteria.
That said, I don't get it. The point of monogamous marriage is to increase love, promote fidelity, decrease STDs, and provide a safe place for children to grow. All of these goals are independent of the sexuality of the two partners. To me, I wish the church would get behind homosexual marriage and denounce extra-marital sex for all people.
|Date:||November 7th, 2008 07:12 pm (UTC)|| |
Re: Not that I agree with it, but...
I do appreciate your stab at explaining the rationale, and I won't argue since you are way more tied in than I, thank the stars. But you didn't answer my real question.
I want to know exactly, in words of one syllable, how two women or two men marrying each other damages any previously existing state of marriage. If "traditional marriage" needs to be protected from being irreparably damaged by allowing any combination of beings besides one man and one woman, surely someone can tell me the mechanism of that damage. I have trouble understanding how any one marriage (say Marriage A) affects any other marriage (Marriages B-infinity).
I don't care what the underlying reasons are, because it is all judgmental behavior from people who claim to know better. But if, as has been claimed, a queer marriage somehow invalidates, harms, breaks, ruins, destroys or casts into harm's way the institution of heterosexual marriage, just waving one's hands about isn't good enough. Show me the harm. Show me how many divorces, spousal abuse cases, extra-marital affairs, loud arguments, domestic violence cases, rapes, or murders can be directly attributed to women marrying women and man marrying men. Document how many marriage certificates of heterosexual couples spontaneously burst into flame whenever a gay marriage is performed. Show me the records of the annulments granted because a non-heterosexual marriage was celebrated.
If you can't show me how "Traditional Marriage" suffers concrete, clear, and present harm or the danger of harm from allowing people to marry regardless of plumbing or genetics, then stop using that as a scare tactic or stated reason for the effort. The yes-on-8 camp members claim to be pro-marriage not anti-gay, but action-wise I cant see any difference, and actions are what leave marks on the universe, not intentions.
|Date:||November 8th, 2008 12:34 pm (UTC)|| |
I don't know and you are right.
And why are you moving to LA?
|Date:||November 8th, 2008 01:08 am (UTC)|| |
Religious extremists who believe that not having their own beliefs privileged over all others constitutes discrimination and abuse against them.
Also, there's this thing -- when most people encounter something for the first time, they tend to be a wary of it. There isn't really a logical intellectual reason for it, it's just the monkey-brain saying new = scary!
This last one is the reason they have enough people on their side to win elections, and also the reason that they very shortly will no longer have enough people. People have a way of getting used to new ideas, especially when they are good ideas.
Young people voted for Obama. Young people voted against Proposition 8.
|Date:||November 14th, 2008 08:56 pm (UTC)|| |
In finally getting back to LJ after some busy weeks. You do remember correctly. Until the late 19th century, marriage was almost exclusively about transferring wealth and property through a familial line. In fact, in early church history, the leaders of the church fought long and hard to expand the definition of marriage so that individuals who didn't own property could marry. Lo, how the mighty have fallen.