Tolerance of intolerance, and other such niceties

[cherry]

I think that pretty much the entire non-American portion of the world (and clearly, a majority of the American portion) is breathing a huge sigh of relief right now. Thank you, America, for having the courage to choose something new.

California, though. California. I fail, on the most fundamental level, to understand the issue of gay marriage. I should perhaps specify: I fail, on the most fundamental level, to understand any possible objection to it. The only argument stems from religion (weakly, at that), and marriage itself is a political institution. Correct the silly Canadian if she's wrong, but doesn't that, oh, I don't know, violate the First Amendment? (Apparently, I'm wrong. If we're going to look at ethical frameworks, though, something like 'though shalt not kill' can be argued from Rights, Virtue, or Justice Ethics, in addition to Divine Command Ethics, while this one can only be argued from Divine Command Ethics.)

I fully respect people's right to belief, up until the moment they start using it as an excuse for ignorance. Selectively literally interpreting the Bible in order to discriminate against something you're uncomfortable with is, in my eyes, deeply ignorant. Set aside that, anthropologically speaking, our view of sexuality is as much of a social construction as our view of gender, and as such fundamentally different from the perception of whomever wrote it; if you're going to ascribe to Divine Command Ethics, and structure your moral framework around a literal interpretation of the Bible, it is hypocritical to pick and choose.

If you're throwing Leviticus at someone on the issue, and you:
1) Eat shellfish,
2) Wear clothes of blended fibres,
3) Are a man and cut more than the edges of your beard,
4) Don't stone blasphemers,

You may be a hypocrite.

If you take a look at the grander scheme, it seems to me that the six or seven passages commonly used to express such bigotry are far outweighed by all the ones telling us to love each other, and not to judge.

If you're informed that Jimmy and Sally are getting married, and you say that their union invalidates, impacts, or in any way effects yours, you will be commonly held to be a fucktard. If you're informed that Jimmy and Sammy, or Jenny and Sally, are getting married, and you say that their union invalidates, impacts, or in any way effects yours -- guess what? You're still a fucktard, and you need to focus on your own family. Nothing has changed, except for the fact that both parties involved have their reproductive organs on the same side of their body cavity. Maybe they also both have red hair -- who knows. It's ridiculous, and it makes you look like a fool.

In conclusion: fuck you, if you think that you should have the God given right to violate someone's fundamental human rights because of who they love. Fuck you very much.

Comments

[nute.livejournal.com]

Correct the silly Canadian if she's wrong, but doesn't that, oh, I don't know, violate the First Amendment?

Technically, you're wrong. You can make laws BASED ON religious beliefs so long as they do not hold any specific religious content. Things like "murder is a crime" could be argued to be a violation of the First Amendment otherwise. "You can't tell me that I can't kill people, just because it's in YOUR Bible!"

Nothing prohibits a church from telling people how they should think, which in turn influences how they vote.

[cherryice.livejournal.com]

Hrm. Then I'm wrong. "Murder is a crime," though, can certainly be argued from many frameworks other than divine command ethics -- right ethics, virtue ethics, etc. I don't see the same for this particular issue, though I could very well be blinded by my lily-livered, bleeding heart, socialist liberal tendencies.

[thefourthvine.livejournal.com]

penknife has a really excellent post on why Prop 8 passed (or is likely to pass; the absentee ballots are apparently still not counted, and there are enough of them to make a difference, though I don't think they will). She speaks with wisdom and political savvy!

[cherryice.livejournal.com]

That was Quite Good. The sheer depths of my lack of understanding is something that's been bothering me -- there are many stances I disagree with but understand, and then there are one like this that just baffle me. Perhaps I am just the victim of my secular, logical, socialist upbringing. *g*

In brighter sectors: My news feed now has titles like "World leaders hail Obama triumph" on it, so this is of the Good, I feel.

[bonspiel.livejournal.com]

Here's the (cheering) thing, though - the last anti-gay-marriage proposition in CA, in I think 2000, passed by a much more significant majority. (And was promptly challenged and then overturned by the state supreme court, which will probably happen again tout suite.) So lame, yes, but progress has arguably been made.

But yeah, I agree with you about the oddness of why people take it as such an affront to themselves what other people do. A lot of the pro-8 ads here were specifically designed to stir up people's fears about their own rights being impinged (they'll teach your children about gay marriage in elementary school! whatever) so it was definitely sold as a gut-level fear thing.

Sorry for any lack of precision of dates/details, it's rather late.

[cherryice.livejournal.com]

See, I only just learned about the pro-8 ads -- I suppose I really should have expected them, though. I cannot see someone running an ad like that up here. The very idea of it makes me ill.

As an aside, I was talking to one of my friends the other day, and she told me that she thinks the saddest, most awful thing she's ever had to do is explain to her kid this whole debacle, explain to him that some people think it's okay to be mean to people because of who they love.

[dreagoddess.livejournal.com]

One thing I found interesting about the Prop 8 vote breakdown. The majority of whites and Asians voted against it. The majority of Hispanics and overwhelming majority of blacks voted for it.

So if there hadn't been such a huge minority turnout for Obama, it probably wouldn't have passed.

About the opposite of what you'd expect, huh?

[cherryice.livejournal.com]

Hrm. My understanding is that there was a stronger breakdown amongst party lines and age categories -- it was overwhelming voted for by conservatives and the elderly.

I fail, on the most basic level, to understand this. There are many issues I disagree with vehemently, but understand. The logic of this is outside my comprehension.

[redbrunja.livejournal.com]

Word.

I have to say it, but America as a whole has never really grocked 'seperation of church and state.'

I blame the fact that we were founded by religious zelots for it.

[cherryice.livejournal.com]

The founding fathers were as a whole strongly secular, though. Jefferson in particular. The idea that America was a nation founded on religion is revisionist history, part of what irks me so.

[redbrunja.livejournal.com]

Oh, yes, very much so. I was referring to the pilgrims, the majority of which (or at least, the best known) came over because England and Holland was just too damn liberal for them.