Log in

No account? Create an account
entries friends calendar profile SpaceParanoids.net Previous Previous Next Next
            Marriage is love. I… - Jarrett Heather
Jarrett Heather's Journal
Marriage is love.

I dare you to come up with one logical reason gay marriage should be banned. Please leave your bible at home and bring some evidence.

I don't want to hear this fall of civilization or decline of "family values" crap. And remember, of course, according to the first amendment we cannot make laws establishing religion. Therefore, try not to use the word "sanctity" or "sacred". Once you declare something sacred, you're establishing a religion and forcing your morality on others. Those words are fine for your church, but they do not belong in our legislation. If you want to belong to a church where gays are rejected, you have that freedom.

Our society does not is not supposed to make laws enforcing morality. Laws exist to protect people's rights.

Furthermore, state recognition of civil unions is a step in the wrong direction and is an unacceptable double standard, mainly because there is no federal law that recognizes the relationship. There are literally a thousand marriage benefits and rights that cannot be granted through a civil union or any power of attorney agreement.

Do me this favor. Make friends with a gay couple. There are millions of them out there. Find two people who truely love each other -- who belong together even moreso than my own (now divorced) parents did -- and tell them they can't afford to own a home because they don't deserve the same state and federal tax benefits a married couple would enjoy. Then explain to me how this is fair and good for our society.

I'm a straight guy, and I support gay marriage 100%.
52 comments or Leave a comment
webdiva From: webdiva Date: February 17th, 2004 08:56 am (UTC) (Link)
logical reason? because bush said so! come on he's the man, anything he says goes! *shoots myself in the head*
jarrett From: jarrett Date: February 17th, 2004 09:03 am (UTC) (Link)


Yes, we've given up our civil liberties to the Patriot Act, government spending is way up, corruption and corporate welfare are rampant, we're ringing up the biggest deficit in the history of the world, we've alienated all of our international allies, and we're embroiled in a messy war fought over lies and bad intelligence.

But, dammit, I'm sure glad repressing the homos is our top priority.
webdiva From: webdiva Date: February 17th, 2004 09:11 am (UTC) (Link)


yeah exactly, in fact shoot bush instead, mmm k? :) i so hope he does not get reelected!
lordremo From: lordremo Date: February 17th, 2004 12:13 pm (UTC) (Link)


Before I allow the Bush-Bashing Bandwagon to continue, let me give you a Reality check. Which current/previous canidate do you think would speak-up or "allow" the legality of gay marriages?

Let's see:

heh heh, Clark?
either Clinton perhaps?

ummm, NO!

I can't fault Bush for being against it because he is following his religious convictions, regardless of them being right or wrong. I don't knock him for his religion; doing so demonstrates discrimination, oppression and small-mindedness. The very things you accuse him of... you are guilty of doing to him.

You can't wait to get Bush out of office, but have forgotten to find someone to actually accomplish the tasks you want. That doesn't impress anyone.
webdiva From: webdiva Date: February 17th, 2004 12:15 pm (UTC) (Link)

Re: Injection

i dont fault bush for that i fault bush for just being a plain ole asshole, him and his entire family. it goes much deeper then this gay marriage stuff for me.
lordremo From: lordremo Date: February 17th, 2004 12:18 pm (UTC) (Link)

Re: Injection

But being an asshole is a requirement for public office. The "nice people" are filterd out through political Darwinism. Aided greatly by the media.

You'll have to give examples to explain your hatred.
jarrett From: jarrett Date: February 17th, 2004 12:40 pm (UTC) (Link)

Re: Injection

The answer to your first question is Al Sharpton:

"I believe in equal human rights, before the law, for all human beings, and race, gender, disability, class or sexual orientation should not be a factor under the law. Even though we live under the law in a secular democratic society, religious groups must still be able to maintain their spiritual and moral option to either give or withhold a religious or sacred blessing to such unions. However, the government should not have that option. It must affirm the human and legal rights of everyone."
- Al Sharpton

Not bad for a reverend!

Moving on, I can and will judge a politician based on his religious convictions. You’re seriously arguing that opposing his policies is a form of discrimination and oppression? I’m sorry, that’s just stupid. If a Jew were elected president and supported legislation to ban the sale of pork products in the United States, would you laud him for sticking to his convictions? If not, does that make you an anti-Semite?

I agree with practically all of Al Sharpton’s platform stances. When he’s not race mongering or saying something completely off the wall, he can be a really attractive candidate.

Sadly, we’re going to have to choose between Bush and Kerry, so I’ll stick with the one who doesn’t wish to rewrite the constitution to fit his political and religious agenda.
lordremo From: lordremo Date: February 17th, 2004 01:19 pm (UTC) (Link)

Re: Injection

No, I can't fault him for acting according to his beliefs. On the other hand, I can still oppose him for his conclusions and actions derived from those beliefs.

Sharpton the politician and reverend is very charismatic and does say many things I like and would agree to. The problem comes when you include all the other hats and sayings over his esteemed career. And while that statement sounds like an endorsment, whether he would go more specific, or actually attempt to do something is more vague.

I thought Sharpton could be the first and best, or maybe the only black President, because he could completely turn around and impress us with great achievements... or he could be the con man we would fear, and destroy future possible canidates. Either way, he has had a humbling effect on the other Democratic contenders.
imprincessapril From: imprincessapril Date: February 17th, 2004 09:10 am (UTC) (Link)
I definitely agree with you.
I'm afraid, however, that your dare will not be taken though, as all I've seen from those who oppose gay marriages so far are so lacking in logic and tangible backing that I have to remind myself that even if I respect and like the person, some people don't feel that everyone is deserving of love, understanding, equal rights, and recognition. I can't find myself to be okay with that way of thinking, but can hope that they'll come to the realization on their own.
jarrett From: jarrett Date: February 17th, 2004 09:34 am (UTC) (Link)


I have hope for the future. Every new generation seems to be more tolerant than the last, so I think in a few hundred years we may catch up to... Canada.
imprincessapril From: imprincessapril Date: February 17th, 2004 09:51 am (UTC) (Link)


the people i've met with the most opposition have been 30s-40s, AND early to late 20s. Maybe by the time they've gotten more life experience... or have a child/loved one struggle with being accepted for something which they have no control over, they will change their views, or even if they DON'T agree with the lifestyle, they will exercise tolerance anyway.
moonlight68 From: moonlight68 Date: February 17th, 2004 09:21 am (UTC) (Link)
I totally agree with you.

Hmmm...Do you think it could ever go a step farther and perhaps one day some religions could fight to be married to more than one person?
jarrett From: jarrett Date: February 17th, 2004 09:31 am (UTC) (Link)


That's the "slippery slope" argument, and is a good example of a logical fallacy.

Aside from that, I think the religous majority in this country is very anti-polygamy. Even the LDS (Mormons) are against it these days.

But then again, what's wrong with polygamous marriage? Who is the victim?

I'm not supportive of Utah-style polygamy, where 14-year-old girls are sent off to be married and have a million babies, but I think that is a separate issue.
moonlight68 From: moonlight68 Date: February 17th, 2004 09:48 am (UTC) (Link)


That's kind of where I was going. At first thought it might seem strange because its different or because we don't do it in this country or because we were raised that it is wrong. But when you think about it like you said, what's wrong with polygamous marriage? Who is the victim?

You are correct that the religous majority in this country is very anti-polygamy. Even the LDS (Mormons) are against it these days. But that's the problem, marriage shouldn't be the churces decision.
particle_man From: particle_man Date: February 18th, 2004 01:38 am (UTC) (Link)


When you consider that marriage started out as a religous idea why shouldn't the church have a say in it?

BTW, Jarrett, it's not possible for some of us to leave our Bible's at home.
jarrett From: jarrett Date: February 18th, 2004 07:14 am (UTC) (Link)


I respect people of faith, but "because it says so in the Bible" should be nowhere on the list of reasons to mandate legislative action.

Plus, marriage has been around way, way longer than the Christian church.

And I’m not arguing that homos should be able to go to your church and be blessed by your priest, rabbi or pastor. But if my church wishes to recognize the sanctity of a same-sex marriage, who is the government to say that it can’t? Some protestant churches interpret the Bible differently. Does the government have the right to restrict their religious freedoms?

Remember, the United States was not founded by Christians. The settlers came here to escape religious persecution. Rewriting the constitution to enforce Christian dogma goes against the very ideals upon which this country was founded.

In today’s world, marriage is an important mechanism for guaranteeing couple’s rights. I’m still waiting for a good, logical reason that the gender of those two people matters.
particle_man From: particle_man Date: February 18th, 2004 07:45 am (UTC) (Link)


The current argument has nothing to do with churches though. It's about a state official granting a legal right (to bad he doesn't have the power or the law on his side to do so) to gay couples to be married. It's a civil issue, not a religous one.
moonlight68 From: moonlight68 Date: February 18th, 2004 07:30 am (UTC) (Link)


Separation of church and State. The church shouldn't have a say in anything. The state is not supposed to pick one religion over the other. Although obviously they repeatedly do.
jarrett From: jarrett Date: February 18th, 2004 07:32 am (UTC) (Link)


Wow, your answer was way more concise than mine. Good job.
From: dark_wolfe Date: February 17th, 2004 09:27 am (UTC) (Link)
Jarrett, you're one of the coolest guys I know!
jarrett From: jarrett Date: February 17th, 2004 09:34 am (UTC) (Link)


Right back at ya!
jesha From: jesha Date: February 17th, 2004 10:46 am (UTC) (Link)
Very well stated!
lordremo From: lordremo Date: February 17th, 2004 11:58 am (UTC) (Link)

Me too!

Sometimes I get the impression that opposers think "If we can just avoid it long enough, the "Gay problem" will just go away". A very unreal approach. The truth is when two gay people get married, it has NO affect on a heterosexual marriage. But it vastly increases the quality and benefits in the gay relationship. It gives them the legitimacy found in other marriages. Opposers don't want that to exist. If a civil union is so great an option, ask those married couples opposed to gay marriages why THEY DIDN'T choose it?

Religion is merely bent because they aren't allowed to fix their doctrines so easily in this day and age. Considering the number of Gay priests in the Roman Catholic church, you'd imagine there would be revolt. But the Pope himself demonstrated he would rather accept the sins of murderers rather than open the church's doors to the gay faithful. My best friend James, who is gay, is a Deacon in training with the American Catholic church; It is a splinter order open to all of God's children.

Imagine my fun, being an open-minded Conservative Republican fighting with my other party members?
From: chinoe Date: February 17th, 2004 12:25 pm (UTC) (Link)
You're damn skippy, and I support gay marriage 100% as well.

To each their own, leave us all be.
particle_man From: particle_man Date: February 18th, 2004 09:31 am (UTC) (Link)
While this has been fun I think sleep will be even more enjoyable since it's 1:30 in the morning. Take care all.
52 comments or Leave a comment