Smeg-heads

[cosmolinguist]

"I believe in the sanctity of marriage. I believe a marriage is between a man and a woman, and I think we ought to codify that one way or the other." Stupid president. Codify your opinions? I'd say no just on principle, but having lived iwth a couple of years of your opinions, specifically, perhaps you can understand my belligerence to them.

"There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family," the Vatican document says. Right, because the Catholic Church says the point of being married is to have babies, which is how they can convince people that sex (and birth control and other good things) are bad. You're not supposed to enjoy sex, you're supposed to use it for procreation!

People actually think this?!

As if homosexual people do not love each other as much as people who can get married now, or as if they couldn't be good parents. "But they can't have kids themselves!" someone will point out. So? My parents couldn't have kids! They adopted my brother and I ... and though we have our differences, I think they're very good parents. By Catholic standards, though (and my dad is Catholic, and my brother and I were "raised" Catholic) my parents' marriage is probably useless because they couldn't procreate.

My mom doesn't like gay people. (After the first one, I learned not to tell her when my friends happen to be anything other than boring old heterosexuals.) I'm sure she doesn't want them to be able to get married. (I've also learned not to tell her stuff I think that disagrees with her, like that French things aren't bad, we're not doing a very good job of liberating the Iraqi people, and anybody should be able to have sex with and marry anybody they want.)

Comments

[andvariar.livejournal.com]

"Now, me, I'm Catholic. I believe in and follow the teachings of the great prophet Cathol."
-Eddie Izzard

This was a very agreeable post. Close-minded people suck.

[cosmolinguist]

Thank you for the nice compliment and the Eddie Izzard. You'll make me want to run around now saying "Cake or death!" (Though I personally like the evil giraffes better.)

Well . . .

[5-rings.livejournal.com]

Bush's statement is just buying him time while he figures out a Clintonian triangulation strategy on the issue. I think what he'll wind up doing is embracing some kind of federalist approach which allows individual states to have gay marriage (or civil unions) without forcing other states to recognize those marriages. An outright ban on gay marriage is something he might favor as an Evangelical, though Rove should quickly figure out that it'll turn off too many moderates and libertarians, and he'll nix that idea.

[g-nice.livejournal.com]

its nothing new or unique to this president (http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/12/gay.marriage/)

[cosmolinguist]

Oh, indeed. It wouldn't be such a problem if it were (though he is pretty good at coming up with crazy stuff on his own and still imposing it on large chunks of the world. A lot needs to change for us to be the great country we say we are and want to be.

[g-nice.livejournal.com]

you may laugh at my simplistic question, but what is it exactly that we are doing wrong? i mean, i have my own opinions and don't think we're perfect but its certainly isn't the "we are bullying the rest of the world viewpoint" that i see and hear on LJ frequently.

[cosmolinguist]

I never laugh at questions; I can be awfully simplistic myself.

I know there are people who could answer this question much better than I ... but America seems to have earned a reputation for being rather intolerant of anything we don't understand--meaning, anything that isn't like us ... whatever "us" happens to be in any given circumstance. It's a dangerously narrow-minded view, and whille by no means a universal one in this (or any) country, it is one that can get people in trouble.

I think we assume Iraq and Afghanistan and Israel and Palestine (and other places) are fundamentally like us, all we have to do is give them McDonalds and Starbucks and a democratic veneer like the one we have--where you can't really criticize the government or expect to hear the truth from your leaders. Sorry, I'm kind of cynical today.

[angel-thane.livejournal.com]

I'm just pissed off at all these 'civil libertarians' who are doing so much work on Queer marriage, but no work at all on polygamous or incestous marriage.

Why the double standard?

[crushdmb.livejournal.com]

Polygamous, perhaps.

Incestous? No. The medical problems alone...

[angel-thane.livejournal.com]

Firstly, incestous couples do not have to produce children. Indeed, two brothers in an incestous relationship would find it VERY difficult to do so.

As to the medical problems if they do decide to have children - quite frankly that's none of your business. Would you also prevent a retarded couple from breeding because of the possible medical problems? How about people with hereditary diseases?

There's a word for that, its eugenics.

[scarlett-harlot.livejournal.com]

*applauds your Bush related comments*...when I hear about his views on gay marriage, it makes me want to repeatedly bounce his head off a brick wall *sighs*. Then again I'm sure violence never solved anything (but it usually puts a smile on my face!) :/

[uclacorey.livejournal.com]

the funny thing is--Jesus never mentioned homosexuality. But he did time and time again talk about how it's easier for a camel to get through the eye of a pin than for a rich man to get through heaven. Guess the wealthy forgot about that...