Andrei Freeman (lordandrei) wrote,
Andrei Freeman

  • Mood:

The inevitable rant on Gay Marriage and the ilk

By way of my local poly board by way of LJ a URL was posted.

I've been trying to not post on the topic, but this rather shallow post really got my dander up. And as I have little hair on the top of my head, that should tell you something.

There is grand opposition in the average <voice sarcasm="High">open-minded</voice> conservative American to the idea of Gay marriage. Many times they argue that it will inevitably lead to dancing legalized polygamy.

My biggest problem with the entire argument is that it always points to the Bible. It's like watching the Scopes trial.
People hem and holler that untraditional marriages upset the stability of the family unit, the sanctity of a social situation.

The fact that people are willing to legislate on this basis of course is legislate that is based from the common religions and kind of obliterates that line between church and state. But that being said... what are we really arguing here?

Most people don't like the idea of certain political ideals because it comes down to their tax money paying for it. Bob the single, yet goodly devout religious one would have to pay more taxes because those evil demon spawn heathen boys across the street now get to combine their non-discriminated against salaries for an easier tax bracket. These such arguments lead to the true answer why Medicare will never be able to cover abortions. Then again, while both sides of that topic dither around different terminology that never mentions the word abortion... they will be in bed playing political footsies for ever.

Now granted, we never get honest about the real reasons. We cloud it in a convenient excuse. "My religion (as my religious leaders have imparted to me as I can not be held to examine religious dogma logically on my own) tells me what you are doing is bad so I must stop it even if I don't think it affects me at all." In truth it really only affects them in the purse-strings. Most churches already realize this and they want first grab; so, anything that pulls away from that must obviously be nipped in the proverbial bud.

So, let's go back to that whole concept of separation of church and state. The concept (contrary to popular demand) was not to keep church out of the government, but to keep the government out of religious practice. Those of you that get to smoke weed or run casinos because of your religion know what I'm talking about. So, the religions bring forth the idea of holy matrimony. I guess we should be happy that we don't have religions that bring the idea of holy murder,(Note, I don't believe in murder) because theoretically, the ACLU could get called in if you tried to violate their religious rights. Granted, we do have religions that believe in holy murder. Our government just cheats and declares said people as fundamentalists who don't understand their own religion, or worse, just decide that the group is not a religion.. so problem solved. {Just watch how fast a Wiccan coven gets faith based charity money from Commendant Ashcroft's Fatherland homeland.}

My problem with the entire mechanism is that we as a civil government extend benefits to people who participate in this religious rite. We've even made our own version of the religious rite without the religion. We eliminate the dogma but keep all the religious rules. We even call our process with the same name. This is very convenient because when we try to change the civil rules because someone else wants to participate in the benefits... the religious arm can argue that we are walking all over their rights. They can even argue the religious texts that state that changing the rules is not just bad or misguided... it is in fact EEEEEVVVVUUULLL.

So what are these benefits? Off the top of my head they include tax reduction rights for people who are financially tied to each other. Typically medical benefit requirements. Rights as kin. Rights as a parent over a child. And liabilites to match. It also is supposed to garner protection in separations.

The requirement for this wealth of financial benefits that actually does in fact force some sense of familial responsibility (that when screwed up is merely labeled as 'disfunctional') is that you have blood, be 18 or at least have a parent that doesn't mind that you're 14, and of course be one man and one woman. You don't even have to be able to sign your own name.

Now as I look at the concept of the Corporation and how not only does it require three to allow you to create a child that you're not financially responsible for, but I look at the benefits vs. the requirements... I find that the entire institution of Marriage as we view it in the (G-d bless or else the) US of A is really nothing more than a well orchestrated perk given to those who want to play by the established religion's rules.

If there was actually a working system of checks and balances that you were being a good family... (an impossible proposition which I also shudder at) then, maybe the rules and the benefits would make sense. However, when I read about how gay marriage or polygamous marriage is devoid of real emotionality and undermines the stability of the family unit (Time to watch the Ozbornes, the Simpsons, and Married With Children again; or at least 2 hrs on Lifetime); I am forced to laugh when I realize (abusing the words of Christopher Reeves) that those who shout the loudest about family values seem to be the ones that least value families.

My own beliefs... Take advantage of whatever is available to get what you think you deserve from the government. I have a person I very much love and plan to bond myself to her religiously and fiscally and get every tax advantage we can for it. It however outrages me that two male friends can't do that and even worse if we want to add another adult to our family we have to incorporate.

I think that as long as a civil contract exists that people can apply for and get tax benefits for, then any discrimination based on number or gender, religious beliefs, yadda-yadda-yadda is illegal. Thus the discriminatory tax benefits should all be eliminated or extended to any clustering of any number of people that so decide to apply for it.

Marriage? That's an antiquated term provided to us by our religious heritage. And by the way... before you continually slam polygamy (which I only have a problem with if it's unwilled or gender based) using the bible as a reason... For some reason I remember that many people in the Jewish testament had multiple spouses. But then again, my interpretation of the Bible is probably flakey and there are many fundamentalists out there who will be glad to tell me how wrong I am.

This is open for argument because I know I have made many an assumption that is bound to upset people. If you have compelling argument please post it. I enjoy being corrected in a false assumption or worse a false fact. If however you want to call me a heathen, tool of the devil... Please stop reading my journal. :) (Grammatical corrections will be edited in and the comments with said corrections will be thanked)

BTW: I am happily engaged to a woman (of the opposite gender to me) who I intend to wed in holy/or unholy civil union. I do it out of love for her and desire to bring us closer (that we already are) I also intend to make binds on our shared religious views. I also do not believe that either act should be limited by the gender that either of us are or the number of us there are.

As the Scadian Marshalls say, "Lay on"

  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded