2008 Woodie Awards
The Gray party guide to issues in the world
Part I
Steve Sommerville and Michael Tate
Issue date: 9/22/06 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 1
Gay marriage is entering the political arena once again for some unknown reason (midterm elections), and it falls on us, the moderates, to point out some logical fallacies in the arguments of general macho men like Randy-I mean, uh, Michael Savage and Bill O'Reilly, kooks like Bill Bennet, and Fox News, the sometimes dregs of contemporary reporting.
Marriage is between one man and one woman, or so the Republicans would ascertain. Such a form is designed to make families more cohesive, more normal, and less gay. Non-straight people cannot be together, let alone have a family. Hmmm…so a child can have a deadbeat abusive father and a mother forced to work two jobs to make ends meet, as long as the child has two parents of different genders (see "Life of Steve," pg. 1). Good grief. I mean, yes, I've read the Bible, the book of the One True Religion (seriously!) and I can see why the Republicans want to replace the Bill of Rights with the Book of Leviticus, but I tend to go by the most recent printing rule--what ever is newer is what goes. So Jesus says love thy neighbor, and so even if my neighbor is "morally bankrupt," I still must love and tolerate him. Even if what my gay neighbor is doing is "wrong" (whether it is or not is not what I'm arguing), it is not my place in any case to impose my will on him.
The Great American Achievement is that we've had a pretty successful time finding our freedom. Now we must place limits on this freedom? I could go off on a tangent about the NSA, but I'll save that for a later time. This now falls on placing limits on what is love and what is a random fetish. During ever age in our nation's history that there has been a major social issue, a battle ensues that always winds up changing the status quo. Slavery for example, was, at least in my estimation, a very bad thing. There were some people in the South that worshipped their deity King Cotton, and felt that to appease this god was to give his plants care and so they had other people pick the cotton for them. But in the end of the battle (it was both physical and social), the system of the status quo was changed. The social changes that occurred during the civil rights movement were similar, though a smidge less violent...but only a smidge. This hogwash that the Republican agenda is trying to force into full existence will lead only to the futile end that has met the other obstacles in the evolution (or intelligent design for the Kansans reading of this) of the society of the US.
Republicans will say that the U.S. is the land of opportunity and freedom, but marriage? That is another argument altogether. Why? It's because, according to them, marriage is the most important institution that we have here...even more important than education, freedom of speech, and equality...but at least not as important as changing the U.S. into a military theocracy…Even though marriage is legally binding before country and God in a land where "separation of church and state" is generally regarded as a pretty important institution.
What is marriage other than simply the whole male stick-figure, a plus sign, and a female stick-figure placed on a car bumper? That's a question for later.
Marriage is between one man and one woman, or so the Republicans would ascertain. Such a form is designed to make families more cohesive, more normal, and less gay. Non-straight people cannot be together, let alone have a family. Hmmm…so a child can have a deadbeat abusive father and a mother forced to work two jobs to make ends meet, as long as the child has two parents of different genders (see "Life of Steve," pg. 1). Good grief. I mean, yes, I've read the Bible, the book of the One True Religion (seriously!) and I can see why the Republicans want to replace the Bill of Rights with the Book of Leviticus, but I tend to go by the most recent printing rule--what ever is newer is what goes. So Jesus says love thy neighbor, and so even if my neighbor is "morally bankrupt," I still must love and tolerate him. Even if what my gay neighbor is doing is "wrong" (whether it is or not is not what I'm arguing), it is not my place in any case to impose my will on him.
The Great American Achievement is that we've had a pretty successful time finding our freedom. Now we must place limits on this freedom? I could go off on a tangent about the NSA, but I'll save that for a later time. This now falls on placing limits on what is love and what is a random fetish. During ever age in our nation's history that there has been a major social issue, a battle ensues that always winds up changing the status quo. Slavery for example, was, at least in my estimation, a very bad thing. There were some people in the South that worshipped their deity King Cotton, and felt that to appease this god was to give his plants care and so they had other people pick the cotton for them. But in the end of the battle (it was both physical and social), the system of the status quo was changed. The social changes that occurred during the civil rights movement were similar, though a smidge less violent...but only a smidge. This hogwash that the Republican agenda is trying to force into full existence will lead only to the futile end that has met the other obstacles in the evolution (or intelligent design for the Kansans reading of this) of the society of the US.
Republicans will say that the U.S. is the land of opportunity and freedom, but marriage? That is another argument altogether. Why? It's because, according to them, marriage is the most important institution that we have here...even more important than education, freedom of speech, and equality...but at least not as important as changing the U.S. into a military theocracy…Even though marriage is legally binding before country and God in a land where "separation of church and state" is generally regarded as a pretty important institution.
What is marriage other than simply the whole male stick-figure, a plus sign, and a female stick-figure placed on a car bumper? That's a question for later.
Be the first to comment on this story