![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
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.
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.
