It's Time to Get Political - Gay Marriage (Warning: May Be Too Controversial For Younger Readers)
AJ: Welcome, everyone! I'm very pleased to announce that I have been given the opportunity to speak to my good friend, George W. Bush! George, welcome to Listology.
GWB: It's great to be here, AJ.
AJ: Now, George, you recently said you supported making a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Is that correct?
GWB: That's right, AJ.
AJ: Don't you think that's a bit extreme? I mean, the Constitution is for protecting important foundations of our country, like freedom of speech, freedom to vote, the right to a speedy trial...
GWB: Perhaps, a bit extreme. But, it's the only way I can block out the efforts of evil people like... that guy from Massachusetts.
AJ: I see. So why don't you support same-sex marriage, anyway?
GWB: Same-sex marriage would weaken the important institution of marriage, which has already been weakened throughout the past few decades. It would bring about the total destruction of the American family life.
AJ: How would it destroy the American family life?
GWB: Hello! Gays can't have kids!
AJ: That's true, but many gay couples adopt children, and I think that more would if they were allowed to get married.
GWB: That's not the same. If a couple can't have kids, they shouldn't be allowed to get married.
AJ: Okay. So then, do you support a constitutional amendment banning marriage for sterile people?
GWB: Don't be ridiculous.
AJ: Well, why not? They can't have kids either.
GWB: Yes, but those people didn't choose to be sterile. There's a difference.
AJ: Oh, so you think that people can choose to be gay?
GWB: Of course they can. You can choose your sexual orientation.
AJ: Are you aware of the many studies done on this matter? How scientists tried to "condition" homosexuals by punishing them every time they did something that would indicate homosexuality, and rewarding them every time they did something that would indicate heterosexuality?
GWB: Sure am. Worked like a charm.
AJ: Actually, George, it didn't work. The subjects remained as gay as they were before.
GWB: Well, whatever. I still say you can choose to be gay. And if you choose to be in a relationship with someone where you can't have kids, then you shouldn't be allowed to marry.
AJ: Okay, so under that notion, do you also support a constitutional amendment banning marriage for people who have had vasectomies?
GWB: Okay, ya know what? I've had enough of your lip. Homosexuality is also outlawed in the Bible.
AJ: Okay, that's true. Homosexuality is outlawed in the Bible. You interpret the Bible extremely literally, then?
GWB: Sure do. I'm a good Christian.
AJ: Okay then, Mr. Bush. Tell me, how did your goat sacrifice go this morning?
GWB: What?
AJ: Well, hell, you justified your claim that homosexuality is wrong by saying you interpreted the Bible literally. You can't be inconsistent, right? So you must be sacrificing goats to God every day like a good Christian, right?
GWB: Very funny.
AJ: No, I'm serious. I want to know, why don't you sacrifice animals to God? I mean, the notion that homosexuality is bad is mentioned maybe two or three times in the Bible, but sacrifice of animals is prevalent.
GWB: Animal sacrifice is an outdated concept.
AJ: So, but you never stopped to think if homophobia is an outdated concept? You just assumed it must still hold just because it's in the Bible?
GWB: Yes. Homophobia is not outdated.
AJ: Oh, okay. So what did you have for breakfast this morning?
GWB: Bacon and eggs. Why?
AJ: Bacon? But bacon's not kosher, George. The laws of kashrut are clearly outlined in the Old Testament. You're telling me that you think homosexuality is wrong based on a few verses about it, but you don't keep kosher despite the agonizingly long description of clean animals in the Bible? You can't tell me it's outdated, because many Jews still keep kosher today.
GWB: Ya know what, shut up. The divorce rate in this country is high enough as it is, and gay marriages just aren't as stable as ordinary ones.
AJ: How do you know that? You've never given gay marriage a chance!
GWB: Well, gay relationships just aren't as stable as heterosexual ones.
AJ: I don't think that's true either. But if it were, maybe that's because they're not allowed to marry.
GWB: Well... I...
AJ: And by the way, if you still think that gay marriage causes the destruction of the American family life... what do you expect a gay man to do if he isn't allowed to marry? He can either (a) accept that he can't get married and not have any family, or (b) deny his homosexuality and marry a woman, which would produce an unstable marriage that is likely to end in divorce.
GWB: No... no... shut up! Shut up! You're wrong!
AJ: And do you realize how many other powerful democracies allow some kind of unification of same-sex couples? Britain, France, Germany, Australia, Canada, South Africa...
GWB: You're lying! You're lying!
AJ: Why do you have such an intolerance of homosexuals, George? I don't understand it.
GWB: Fine, fine. I'll tell you. I had a very traumatic childhood. When I was 8, my father was killed in a car accident. The other driver happened to be homosexual.
AJ: Your father is still alive.
GWB: Hey, look over there!
AJ: Where?
When I looked back, he had bolted out the door.
THE END
Disclaimer: I think that my portrayal of Christians might be interpreted as a bit harsh. I certainly have nothing against Christians or Christianity or those who interpret the Bible literally, and I don't honestly believe that one can't be a good Christian if they don't sacrifice goats to God. But I really have problems with people who use religion to push their political beliefs.
That was great AJ, but you missed a golden opportunity for Dubya to talk about the American nucular family!
Hahaha. Good call.
Very well done. You leave out the "civil union" thing, which is the compromise some are shooting for here in MA (not sure if Dubya has anything to say about 'em though). Somehow this placates some of the "gays can't get married" crowd. So the MA constitution is amended (potentially) so that "marraige" is one-man-one-woman only, but gays get "civil unions" that confer all the legal/financial benefits that comes with "marriage", but it's not called "marriage." Last time I checked "separate but equal" was unconstitutional though. And then there's the whole "separation of church and state" thing. If it's the fact that marraige is a sacrament that gets everybody all uptight, then marriage should strictly be a church thing, and the state should ONLY recognize civil unions for everyone (like that'll happen). So if you want to get married you go to a church that supports your brand of marriage, but as far as the state (or country) is concerned, you're just "unioned." Everybody talks about how complicated this issue is, but I don't see how it's not cut-and-dry discrimination.
Good point. I guess if you believe that one chooses one's sexual preference, it's a different issue than just discrimination, but I think that's a rather ignorant belief.
Besides, if you can choose your sexuality, why would anyone want to be gay? They can't even get married, fer cryin' out loud!
A gay friend of mine (occasionally known as Edgar Allan Poe ;-) agrees with you about the church / state thing, I think. He thinks that it should be the individual church's right to refuse to perform a gay marriage, but it shouldn't be any business of the government to outlaw it. That would work for me, but it sure won't happen anytime soon if Dubya gets reelected. And with Nader running, things don't look good for the Democrats...
I'm hoping the Nader effect is diminished because everybody realizes by now (or should) just how off his rocker he is.
Like you, I find the notion that your sexual preference is a choice absurd. It's simply not in me to choose to be homosexual, and I imagine the prospect of heterosexuality is just as alien to anyone homosexual. Furthermore (again, as you note), who would choose it?! "A lifetime of ridicule, discrimination, and ostracism? Woo-hoo! Where do I sign up?!" Give me a break.
I'm sure plenty of people will still vote for Nader. (sigh) I don't have anything against the guy's politics, but c'mon. It's like throwing your vote in the garbage (while screwing over the guy who's slightly less left-wing, in favor of the conservative, in the process).
Addressing the overall argument concerning Nadar taking votes from the Democrats... I can't help but wonder what sort of corporate creature it would take to siphon votes from a Republican.
AJ, you will be old enough to vote this year, right? I sure hope you do if you are eligible.
Alas. Being an early December birthday, I miss the deadline by about a month. I'm pretty young for my grade; most of my friends are voting, and voting Democrat.
I hear you. I have a november birthday and I was much in the same situation as yourself in high school. BTW-just voted in our primary today :).
I completely agree. I am a gay male in Rockford Il. It seems to me that everyone here thinks that the homosexual life style is a life style that is chosen. No it is not. My parents disowned me for about 10 years and they finally came around in the past year, realising that the gay life style is not a chosen one. I have the same beliefs as they do but that I am homosexual.
Why would I choose this way of life. Why would I want to be away from my family. I would not. There fore those whom think this way are ignorant. They do not understand. I love who I am and am respected among the community for being me. Not being gay. But, for being me.
The people know. They just don't care.
All I can say is, "Be yourself. Don't be a bitch, don't be a fag. Be yourself. Show them that we are just like they are. We want families. We want businesses. We want children. Be yourself. Don't be someone different just because your gay. Be true to you not them."
Beautifully said, and I'm glad your parents have seen the light. Sorry I missed this comment when it was first posted.
I've decided I care about politics. What's been going on since 2000 is too wounding to my soul to ignore it in sloth and ignorance any longer. I think of the damage this administration has done - often in the name of my God - and I weep. The arrogance and ignorance (excepting Condi) of our leadership, the lies and coverups, the incredibly corrupt Congress, the massive budget deficit. I can't take it any more. And to think that the Church, "my" people, was the force that put these people in power and especially kept them in power in 2004, hurts. I weep to think that millions of Americans who couldn't point to Burma or Somalia on a map, explain the difference between budget deficit and trade deficit, or name two bills in Congress right now, simply obeyed the pastors when they said, "Gay marriage and abortion are more important than war, the economy, health care, and feeding the poor," though no president has the power to stop gay marriage or abortion anyway. That fucking hurts me, man.
So here's the thing. My knowledge of politics really is pretty limited. I turn to Listology first because you're all my friends and it is a great community. Please, I need pointers to (preferably online) resources for study on the current political system, the political history of important figures, and the best news sites & blogs for taking a highly critical look at what's going on in politics (not the shit on TV). I've mostly been scouring Wikipedia and Scaruffi's politics pages right now.
Hell yeah, lukeprog! Take a stand!
This may be too overwhelming for you to start with, but a friend of mine used to be completely obsessed with knowing everything about politics, and he once told me about the Hotline. It's basically this source that compiles virtually every news story of political significance into one page every day. It's a lot to digest, but if you want to jump right in, there ya go. (Click on Latest Edition at the top of the right-hand toolbar)
If you're interested in left-wing blogs, the most popular one is probably www.dailykos.com.
And if you miss an episode of the Daily Show, you can download videos at comedycentral.com. :-)
Thanks for your help. Alas, hotline is paid subscription only.
The comedy central videos no longer show video on my broadband PC at work. Stupid Windows Media broke, I guess. Anyway, while The Daily Show is extremely entertaining, it's not the best source of well-informed political opinion. For example, it continues to assert that Bush lied about WMD, when it makes far more sense that he was simply misinformed. Everybody thought Sadaam had WMD.
Are you sure about the Hotline? I can click on "Today's Edition" at the top right and see the good stuff, and I don't have a subscription.
I remember a study conducted in 2004 that found that Daily Show viewers were more informed about the election that people who watched other news shows, and oftentimes even more informed than people who got their news from newspapers. True, the Daily Show did spend a lot of time covering the election, but I wouldn't be surprised if Daily Show viewers were more informed in general than those who watched other news shows. In any case, I don't think the Daily Show "asserts" much of anything. Sure, they're left-wing, but I think they tailor the specifics of their politics to what is humorous at the time. They might have said Bush lied about WMDs at some point, but other times they might say he didn't lie, he just fucked up.
When I click the Hotline link above, I am prompted via JScript for a username and password, and can't get in without one.
I have no doubt that Daily Show viewers were generally more informed about the election than viewers of, say, FOX. If I had cable, I'd be watching that show every day. And I don't watch TV for anything anymore.
Finally, some truth about Iraq.
I should just shell out the cash for an ask.metafilter.com account, but Listology's just so gosh-darned friendly. I'd like to find a site that can aggregate foreign news sources in English so that I don't have to read my world news from English, British, Canadian, or Australian sources, which seem to have an entirely different perspective of world events than the rest of the world. Perhaps there's nothing like this, but perhaps there are similar solutions. Anyone know of any?
Give Worldpress a gander.
At first gander, it appears great. Many a gander shall I give!