Gay Marriage Could Be Our Oprah

By
t1larg.gay.marriage.iowa
0 Flares Facebook 0 Twitter 0 Google+ 0 Reddit 0 Pin It Share 0 Email -- Filament.io Made with Flare More Info'> 0 Flares ×

Marriage is a definition, a union, a locus of power, a good institution between consenting adults, a symptom of lineage, a word used by the violent and angry to excuse their violence and anger, a tax break, a religious rite—but the core of our national debate on whether or not men who love men, and women who love women, love each other in the same way that heterosexual couples do (and do not)… all the fuss, whether it be the polite support of same-sex marriage bans or the furious exchanges and blood-filled screams against gay marriage, all the fuss is at its root telling a group of people that they are not equal.

 

Let’s begin with a truth—there is no proof that homosexual populations are any more amoral or bad or evil than heterosexual populations. When you argue against that with examples of pederasty, for example, or some actual criminal activity, you are picking a small sample of a population and making the whole look as if they are the same.

 

Most priests are not pedophiles. Most cops are not violent scumbags. Most white people are not racist. And most Americans care about the environment and the humanity of people around the world.

 

Most homosexuals are perfectly fine people.

 

The suggestion or act to use Federal law to discriminate against lawfully married same-sex individuals, or to prevent same-sex individuals to marry is at its core woeful and torturous. It is too idealistic to believe that racism, bigotry, and sexism and will ever be independently or collectively eradicated—so, I believe that certain states should have the right to set certain laws.

 

Or at least one part of me does.

 

One part of the mind recoils at the anti-gay movement—and nearly finds delight at the thought that there could be entire states, say New York, in which dense populations of people reside, free to be who they are so long as it does not harm other people. Of course, there would be a few more rules than that, but that’s the gist.

 

I imagine two homogenous kinds of states, namely “homo” and “no-homo”, which I would argue would be applied to the states opposite of which they desire, in order to act like a mirror and let people know that they should not go there if they disagree with hating the word labeling the state.

 

Most priests are not pedophiles. Most cops are not violent scumbags. Most white people are not racist. And most Americans care about the environment and the humanity of people around the world…. Most homosexuals are perfectly fine people.

 

A state would receive the label “homo” if they hate “homos” because that is what being against same-sex marriage is, hatred, whether it is very small hatred or roaring. “No-homo” states would be states with same-sex marriage allowance. Anger, as it were… what people hate… is often the easiest trait to conjure when thinking of a group of people. So to label a state with names of what they hate would be a great travel warning system.

 

And then the United States citizenry would finally exist in a perfect un-union that would likely run mostly “no-homo” (homo-friendly) to the north, and “homo” (non-homo-friendly) to the south.

 

When you think back only a hundred years or so, a split like this hasn’t been tried before, so there’s a chance it could work.

 

Another part of me sees the errors in that idea, despite how sound it seems to me right now. Consider having whole states in which rainbows would exist only in red circles with red lines drawn across them, and whole states in which the average person can not only wear jeans, but wear them well… why, it would just not work. If I wanted to go to a homo-hating state, because I am heterosexual, and therefore somehow better than gays in their eyes—blatantly not true in my opinion—I would have to buy dumpy looking jeans, or jeans that only bowed legs could possibly fit into (tight jeans are not automatically attractive jeans).

 

There are other problems with a “homo/no-homo” state labeling system.

 

For one, people who own land in a state that happens to change its laws to persecute the landowners get a raw deal. No one likes eminent domain, unless you are an oil company, a natural gas company, rich enough to buy another house, rich enough that you already own another house, rich enough that you can get to and from work in a city and not see too many homeless people or protesters, or rich enough that you can just sit at home and shoot random items with buckshot all day. A brief acknowledgement: the very poor can also stay at home and shoot their things with buckshot, but the motivating emotion is more anger than emptiness, and if they had to move they probably wouldn’t be able to.

 

There’s also the stereotype that gay couples are filthy rich. Well, if women make 70 percent the wages of men, on average, then lesbian couples make 70 percent of what two married men make, while a male/female marriage makes 15 percent more than lesbian marriages. So, gay men might have an easier time moving than gay women, therefore lesbians would receive disproportionate oppression in this instance.

 

Consider having whole states in which rainbows would exist only in red circles with red lines drawn across them, and whole states in which the average person can not only wear jeans, but where them well… why, it would just not work.

 

But would it really make a healthy country?

 

Having whole states of same-minded people actually seems like a terrible idea. Too “homo-minded” in the “homogeneous thoughts” sense. Like-minded people think alike, and when they do they get excited like bats grabbing pebbles rigged with wire to a 12-volt battery. Which is to say that they don’t make much sense.

 

Consider another serious issue:

 

The Federal law, The Defense of Marriage Act (which Massachusetts filed a lawsuit against in 2009), defines marriage as a union between a male and a female. That definition was based mostly on religious principles and tradition. There are two problems with this definition. The first is that as Americans, we love to redefine things. Corporations are people. Mitt Romney is a human. Enemies are “unlawful enemy combatants”. The criticism that “The Bible defines marriage as one man and one woman” does not apply to our government because of the separation of church and state, and also—and this is probably more important—we don’t usually go by definitions anyway.

 

American’s cite the Constitution as a lawful document that allows them to possess automatic machine guns to fill their pill boxes that guard their bomb shelters. Redistribution of wealth is argued by many to act like gravity in that the wealth should flow to where it is already the densest.

 

So, saying that marriage is solely between a man and a woman is a bit of a strict interpretation compared to how we interpret other definitions.

 

The emotional base of the argument against same-sex marriage rights is made of hatred and anger, and has much more to do with oppression and inbred feelings than it does with correcting and preventing a private act that could lead to public degradation, or the ruination of a society.

 

Other arguments are more pertinent. That it is amoral behavior. That it corrupts society like flashers or public urinators. And some equate this to zoophilia, or humans having sex with animals. First, animals are not on the same conscious plane as we are—although apparently some of us aren’t on that plane either. Second, I have never seen a homosexual man running around flashing his genitalia, but I have seen high school sports jocks from the town I grew up in do that. And, Bret Favre too.

 

The emotional base of the argument against same-sex marriage rights is made of hatred and anger, and has much more to do with oppression and inbred feelings than it does with correcting and preventing a private act that could lead to public degradation, or the ruination of a society.

 

It is an obscene argument… as obscene as the “obscenity” they claim to protest—except that their argument has vicious intent, in that the cruelty is deliberate. And that makes the argument inexcusable. Gay haters deserve all the ridicule they receive, because they invite it. Dumb is dumb, and they are dumb like the fraternally hungover attempting to process the uncomplicated mathematics of buying a Bloody Mary on a Sunday with three dollar bills and a handful of nickels—I have been there, and it is such an unreasonable and painful state to be in that the humanity of other people around you often goes overlooked, and so you are unconsciously callous and rude, which is a symptom of dumbness.

 

Yes, being extremely hungover and rude to people is indeed similar to not liking the idea of same-sex marriage—and the hungover are arguably more detrimental to a society’s health.

by & filed under Body & Soul, Health & Humanity.