sekiharatae | Maybe I'm stupid, BUT:

I typed this up in a fit of pique, and then found I couldn't post it directly. I'm not 'approved' to comment on the blog in question. But, I put time into it, so here it is:

I fail to see how legalizing gay marriage in any way is a 'faith' issue. To argue about it, first, completely ignores the separation of church and state. That aside... When one says one doesn't 'believe' in gay marriage, what does that mean? It means that you don't condone gay marriage, which is a completely different thing. The reason you don't condone it is because of your faith; but its existence doesn't deny you your faith. You're free to go right on thinking it's wrong. What you're not free to do is deny a gay couple their rights.

To make an analogy, consider the subject of pharmacists' rights vs. the rights of the patient. Pharmacists whose religion doesn't 'believe in' or 'condone' the use of birth control or the morning-after pill, have the right not to fill such prescriptions. However, the patient has a similar right to get the prescription filled. To prevent it is to force the pharmacist's beliefs on the patient. This is neither the pharmacist's job nor their right. Yet this is what is being done with respect to gay marriage. To bring the analogy home: this view would hold that the pharmacist should have the right not only to refuse to fill the prescription -- because it is against his or her beliefs -- but the right to refuse the patient the ability to have the prescription filled ever.

The individual I wanted to respond to tried to argue that both homosexual and heterosexual couples have the same rights, by arguing that there are cases in which heterosexual couples can't be married, too. This, however, is not an analogy, despite their argument to the contrary and their claims of being 'logical'. To make an analogy, there has to be a base similarity between the things being compared... and there is no such similarity between a man who is unable to marry because the woman doesn't love him, or unable to marry because the woman he loves is currently married; and two homosexuals being refused the right to marry period. These are stumbling blocks, not (necessarily) dead ends. The woman may come to love the man, or the woman may get divorced, and then the heterosexual couple can ride happily off into the sunset. (The last example, involving siblings, is correct: the siblings are doomed. However, as the same is true of two brothers and two sisters, equality is achieved, based upon the fact that incest is frowned upon across the board. It shouldn't be any more or less wrong simply because siblings share the same biological equipment.)

There is no such happy ending -- in this world view -- even possible for the homosexual couple.

Homosexual couples will have the same rights as heterosexual couples when the only stumbling blocks to such are exactly the same. In short: both partners must consent, must be free from other similar obligations (i.e. not already married), not related, etc. The fact that they are same-sex shouldn't even be a factor. The fact that your religion doesn't condone gay marriage should only be a factor if you're the one called upon to perform the ceremony -- in which event, you would have the right to say 'no', but not the right to deny them the ability to get married ever. Happily, the same is true of a gay person: they have the right to refuse to fill your prescription or unite you in marriage personally, but they can't stop you from going elsewhere. Huzzah!

Should you feel the need to yell at me for this post: I will apologize if I have offended anyone's sensibilities by my use of blunt or condescending language. But I do not apologize if you are offended simply because I think you don't have the right -- based on your personal beliefs, regardless of how many people share them -- to prevent same-sex couples from joining in a legal and loving partnership. No one says you have to approve, and go on the talk shows touting gay marriage as the best thing since sliced bread; what you're being asked to do is allow other people to live their lives their way, provided doing so doesn't hurt anyone. (And I fail to see how it hurts anyone. I suppose if you believe that it will bring about the apocalypse, you might have reason to worry... but given all the rest of the stuff that goes on in the world -- child abuse, for example -- I really doubt gay marriage will be the tipping point.)

So many religious people like to scream that their rights are being infringed on, simply because they're asked to be tolerant. This is especially horrid to me, considering that their religion itself asks for this! (I'm not up on the Bible, but I don't believe it says 'love thy neighbor, provided he/she is not gay, not Jewish, not green...) Sadly, while certainly not the only culprits, Christians are among the loudest and most obnoxious.

ETA: In my mind, there is a separation between voting to allow gay marriage, and condoning it. Voting to allow gay marriage is only necessary because of stupid twaddle in the first place. To make an analogy: if you must, think of it as voting to allow people to do something they should be free to do anyway, but which you think is incredibly stupid. Like... for me, voting to make it explicitly legal to own thirty-six cats in a one bedroom apartment. Or, to tattoo your entire body permanently green because you're a fan of Star Trek. I think both of these things are undesirable, but I also think people should already have the right to do them. So, while I don't condone permanently dying oneself green, I would vote to allow it. (This is not to say I think gay marriage is stupid... which is probably obvious, but just to clarify. I'm just trying to make the point that you can vote to allow people to do something you disapprove of, simply because you approve of allowing people to have free will to make the choice.)

Current Mood: angry

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I FUCKING LOVE YOU!!

Seriously. You just graduated from adored and affectioned to I would do time (a small amount as I'd miss my kids) for you.

THIS! Everything you said.

I hate, HATE, HATE, the hypocritical bullshit about tolerance when the bottom line is NO ONE, and I mean no one on the frikkin' planet--can tell someone else that their love is any less valid than theirs. I mean, seriously, thinking that 'love' is gender specific is beyond retarded in my opinion--but worse (so much worse, it is scary) is the idea that we have any RIGHT to take the most fundamental human emotion and try to negate it by disallowing is validity in the eyes of the law.

I love you too! *hugs* And I sincerely hope I never do anything that requires either of us to do time...

Two thumbs up and a bottle of rum! =)

Woot! *hugs*

WORD. I agree with everything you wrote. Except I don't think a pharmacist should have the write to deny a person's perscription. If you don't like it, find another line of work, I say!

Part of me would like to say the same thing (find another line of work). I mean... know your limits, right? I couldn't work as a hairdresser or a dentist, for example. I know there will be people who come in for a haircut who will have hair I'm afraid to touch, and I'm just really not all that keen on sticking my fingers in some stranger's mouth. =P And a pharmacist who has to work on the weekend, should DEFINITELY not have such a religious objection. But... as long as their conscience is assuaged in a way that doesn't particularly inconvenience me, I don't have a problem with it. It's when they take it to extremes -- I have handled an evil prescription and must destroy it to avoided sinning! -- that I think, yeah, they have a problem and have picked the wrong calling. Sadly, the whole thing came to a head because of a guy like that: Neil Noesen refused to fill a prescription, refused to transfer it to another pharmacy upon request, and refused to inform the prescribing physician. He's apparently had trouble keeping a job since then, and claims it's because he's being persecuted because of his religious beliefs. (No, you're being treated like an unprofessional jerk, which you are.) He's been in trouble 4 times now I think...

Sorry, ramble much Tae?

Just thought I'd add: My hubby agrees with you. =D

Totally agree! I have always been for gay marriage, but i never looked at it from that angle- very astute observation Tae-san!!! I think they should be able to do anything they want to- just like straight people. I mean, who cares what your sexual preference is? It only matters in fanfiction ^__^

Exactly: who cares what your preference is? That's your business and not really anyone else's.

*cheers and seconds*

Yay! ^_^

Here´s the link to a little comment I made in a really obnoxious post.
http://www.gaiaonline.com/forum/chatterbox/what-s-wrong-with-being-homophobic/t.52329301_140/

I have little else to add to that post. Just that what I´m about to say may not be terrible popular, but it´s what I believe is right.
I´m a deeply religious person. I read the Bible on a daily basis, and there´s a rather strong adjective there for those who taking the flag of Christianism mingle with politics. Whatever gay marriage is approved or not, in your country or in mine, it doesn´t really is significant for me, as it won´t sway my moral beliefs in one way or another.
Whatever we think is right or not, we must respect everybody´s right to take their own decisions, for free will is so sacred that God didn´t stop Adam and Eve of eating the forbbiden fruit. So, whoever is right or wrong here, let them carry the weight of their own decisions. Not everybody is tolerant and respectful, but we should be, no matter our differences in POVs

I'm sorry, but I don't know what adjective you mean.

However, I do agree that we need to be tolerant. Because we need to be tolerant, I think the issue of gay marriage has to be important to me. I'm not homosexual, and whether or not my country allows it won't change my moral beliefs, either. But if I believe in being tolerant, I have to believe in equal rights for everyone... and legislation that prevents homosexuals from being married infringes upon that.

Thank you; I was trying to put into words my thoughts on it, but you said what I was trying to formulate. I, too, have a very strong faith and beliefs, but being a Christian does not mean discriminating because someone believes differently than me. As Tae said, I'm not called to scream and abuse anyone for what they think. I'm called to love. That doesn't mean compromising what I believe, because anyone who knows me knows I won't compromise my faith in my life. But how I live my life is MY choice and how someone else lives their life is THEIR choice. We're all intelligent people and we make up our own minds--that's how it's supposed to be. Just because I might believe differently than someone else doesn't mean that we can't respect each other and be friends. I have plenty of very close family members and friends who live various lifestyles and believe various things. It doesn't mean that we love each other any less for our differences in opinion. I think that goes for anything at all, not just gay marriage.

I don't have to agree with someone else's lifestyle and beliefs, just like they don't have to agree with mine. *shrugs* I like to think we can still show each other friendship and respect. Unless someone's like, you know, sacrificing their children or out committing murder--then I think we'll have some issues. ;)

I am concerned that you feel I'm bashing your faith... that is certainly not my intent. I hope I am misunderstanding?

Oh, no, not at all! I'm sorry if it came across that way--I did not feel at all that you were bashing my faith or anyone else's. ^_^ I thought you were just expressing your opinion in a very reasonable and mature way (pfft, not that I'd expect anything less from you, LOL), and my point was that it's good because everyone should be able to express their opinion and I think there are bad ways and good ways of doing that. (Obviously, you expressed your thoughts in a very good way. It's the people who scream and rant and rage--no matter what they believe--that make me groan and smack my forehead. I know there are plenty of people who give Christianity a bad name because of the way they go about things, and I really hope I never come across as one of them.) My comments weren't directed at you, just at humanity in general. ;)

Whew! *is relieved*

And no, you've never come across as the obnoxious type of Christian. Truthfully, I doubt you have an obnoxious bone, tendon, or tendency in your body. ^_^

*hugs*

Haha, I'm sure I have family members who would disagree, but thank you. ^_^

*hugs back* I think you are such an amazing, incredibly awesome person, in case you didn't know. :D

My sisters and I have used a similar argument in every debate about this subject and honestly it leaves everyone speachless.
Struck dumb.
As though they never considered the fact that 'hmmm you know what...This country was founded on the belief of seperation of Church and State and everytime the two collide it is a disaster. Soooo...even if you believe that it is wrong and against your beliefs...what gives you the right to force your beliefs on someone else, using the gov't to do so?'.
And also, passing laws like that denies people their constitutional rights. Telling someone they are not allowed to marry the person they love, is denying them Pursuit of Happiness.
This has always been an 'instant debate mode on' subject with me. Thank you for putting so eloquently what I have been arguing.
And no...you are most definately not stupid my dear! =D

Thank you hon! *hugs*

It's something of an instant debate mode on for me, too. I was especially upset to see the opposite point of view expressed on the blog of someone whose work I have always enjoyed.

I just really don't understand the attitude/thought processes.

As a side note, I love listening to Lewis Black rant on the subject. XD

OMG, THIS. So freaking much. *applause*

(I'm not up on the Bible, but I don't believe it says 'love thy neighbor, provided he/she is not gay, not Jewish, not green...)

This reminds me of what I tell people who want to convert me to whatever church they go to - when I can find one that doesn't put qualifiers on the phrase "love thy neighbor", I'm home. Till then, no thanks.

Ditto! ^_^

Wordy McWord. Couldn't put it better.

Thank you!

This is one of the reasons that i'm strongly against religion... >_<

You've made a good argument, I agree 100%. =D

Well... I'm not so much against religion, as against those who use it as an excuse not to think, or an excuse to be mean or cruel to someone else. I also have a bit of a problem with a strictly literal interpretation of the Bible, especially since it's been translated so very many times. When someone states 'it says it in the Bible', what that really means is either (1) my pastor/priest/etc. says it's in the Bible or (2) the translation I have (which relies on someone's interpretation of the original) says it.

Sorry, rambling...

Lol, ramble away! Like you said, if it's alright for religious people to preach their ideas, than so should you. =P

I personally think that if you have to follow a religion (I wouldn't like to deny anyone their religion, even if I don't agree with it), it should be a private thing. Faith is something you should have for yourself, and it always just seems to me that if you feel the need to prove the existence of the object of your faith to as many people as possible, then you're just trying to validate it.

But I do think that homosexuality is slowly becoming more and more accepted, despite them, which is a brilliant thing.

If possible, my respect for you has shot up exponentially. Thank you for speaking out against the ban on gay marriage! It makes me disappointed that even in the 21st century, people can still be so dogmatic. And I don't believe some of the people who use religion as a justification against homosexuals either. They may truly believe it, but that doesn't make their judgment right. People can used religion to justify any thing, even slavery.
I'm also glad you brought up the contraception analogy because that issue makes my blood boil even more as a woman. Again people use religion to excuse their infringement on other right, and in this case, to absolve their responsibility as pharmacists. If that the case, then I guess doctors can pick and choose whom the want to save.
I don't understand why some people get so upset and bothered at how other live their lives.

Thank you!

And the pharmacist thing -- if they completely refuse to give the prescription back, or hand it to someone else to fill -- makes me mad, too.

Good job, Tae! You've channeled into words what a lot of people think.

I believe we should be tolerate of others and their beliefs and lifestyles. I'm not saying that people of opposite lifestyles and religions have to be best friends forever, but some level of tolerance in needed.

If someone doesn't condone homosexual marriages, that's their opinion. They have a right to their opinion, and they have a right to express it within reason (just as you have to right to express your opinion in this post). They don't, however, have the right to prevent others from living the way they want to (within reason).

But, I don't think that a homosexual couple should be given special treatment versus a heteroexual couple. They should have equal rights, one shouldn't be more important than the other.

Anyways, I think people should stop whining and focus on something important.

So, good job again! (And, sorry about the rant. >.<)

I don't think homosexuals want special treatment, they want the same treatment. I think that's what makes it doubly insulting when someone says something to the effect of 'you have the same rights: you can marry a person of the opposite sex'. It's a shallow response that completely avoids the issue. (Oh, I get soooo mad at those people. Grrrr.)

I'm assuming when you say that people should stop whining, you mean the people who are against gay marriage? ^^; Because gay marriage is important -- very important -- to gay people who want to get married! (Given the tone of the rest of the comment, I think that's what you mean...)

I'm not saying that they want special treatment, I'm saying that they shouldn't get special treatment... nor should they get any less rights than a man-woman couple. No more, no less. Equality.

And yes, I meant people who are against gay marriage.

And you are exactly right. =)

This is great- too bad you couldn't post it on the original blog. I really respect that you've put your opinion out there (or tried to at least :P) and put so much time into making it clear and interesting. I agree with everything you've said here. Again, great job :)

Thank you!

Hear! Hear! Although, 36 cats in an apartment rightly would likely violate health codes and J.Q. Public has the right to protection... Well said, Tae. mc

This is made of AWESOMENESS.

Go Tae~!

i don't know whether you'll read this or not (since i know i'm sooo late, blame the network connections and my illnesses)

To be honest, I don't really know whether I'm against homosexuality or not. Simplifying my opinions about that thing in my head may just spin it too much.

All the way, this is about homosexual in general, or maybe it's better to say, universal term. And because that too I don't think I can say much since I am a Moslem (Moslem doesn't mean terrorist, just FYI to all, and I'm here not to debate about differentiation in beliefs ) and I don't read Bible. I don't even know the general formal rules of USA.

To me there are reasons of why homosexual (not only marriage) could be disagreed.

1. Let's just say, For people who are straight, or are not usual with homosexual relationship, they would be scared.
Maybe the reason's never so obvious on the girls' side, since actually it's minimizing the danger (of being raped, stalked, etc) for them. But is actually obvious in the straight guys themself. *you know why*.
Here, we don't assume that gay guys are always nice right?
And because some people are scared, it could be said as some kind of security distraction, will be assumed bigger, if thought so by big majority.

2. Depending on the countries, like mine, which used many Islamic elements (in this case I mean non-Christian religions) on its every part such as formal rules (not as much as in Saudi Arabia tho), people's point of view of it (homosexuality) will also be different as in USA or any other more liberal country since many of them are raised and grown with some perception (which some of them maybe also existing in some other religions but not in the rest) , whatever those are. like for example: Eve/Hawa is Adam's canon pairing, and that having sexual intercourse before marriage is a super-super bad deed, and also that it is believed better to 'help' and 'take out' people from bad deed (as in homosexuality, maybe they think if they forbid it, it would decrease, and they think they made good deed).

If USA is really a liberal state, when rules of a specific religion or majority's religions doesn't really matter in the FORMAL NATIONAL RULES (not like in my state which uses many Islamic elements),
Then I guess homosexual relationship (not in public of course, just like sex in public is not so nice *except in fanfic :P*) in USA would be far easier to be agreed. And those who said things from the Bible or from whatever religion book to stop homosexuality legalization, could as well be said as only a political use (example: for their own dislikes of it).
All the way, people decisions on doing 'bad' deeds doesn't mean is also your decision, right? It wouldn't even affect faithful people.

But it's only for in USA. Not in universal. As in universal term I guess it is still a better way to solve it by following the rules of the state they are living in (after solving things in the rules like I said in before). And if they're living on somebody's land they'd rather follow the rules there (which means it's back into majority and timelines of who came first)

If all that has been settled, then homosexual marriage acceptance is just laying in front of the eyes.

For simple, I think the problem is just between the words 'Letting' and 'Ignoring', though.

--see the subject *rolls*
1. "...when rules of a specific religion or majority's religion (minus 'S') doesn't really matter ..."

2. "Maybe the reason's never so obvious on the girls' side" --> because as this far we can hear many girls saying homosexuality is an "EWWW" or is not good to see, which is a bad reason to forbid it.

I mean you can't make a rule that someone shouldn't eat worms,in whatever way it is cooked, when it's the only possible food in their environment. But in other way, you still can forbid yourself to eat worm because you don't want to.

Imagine the worms is the homosexual's target, the cooking way is whatever way the would do it, and eating worm is a homosexual deed.

by the way, FYI, I haven't even lived for 18 years, and I'm not even a native English speaker. So, I'm terribly sorry if I didn't express my opinion professionally and I'm also very sorry for any existing grammatical errors. :)

Keep on writing, Tae-san! I really respect (and also admire) you, you know! ;)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Profile

sekiharatae

October 2020

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
				1	2	3
4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17
18	19	20	21	22	23	24
25	26	27	28	29	30	31

Page Summary

Style Credit

Base style: Abstractia by chiming
Theme: Sea Glass II by nornoriel

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags

Page generated Jun. 12th, 2025 01:36 pm

Making procrastination look productive.

Maybe I'm stupid, BUT:

Links

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags