|
by FoK 03/03/2003, 9:14am PST |
|
 |
|
 |
|
Lufteufel wrote:
I need clarification wrote:
Out here in California in 2000, voters passed an act called the Defense of Marriage Proposition. While this sounds like an innocuous enough act, it actually was an attempt to cofidy the illegality of same-sex marriages. Rather than come out and say that fags shouldn't marry because GAY IS BAD ACCORDING TO TEH BIBLE, the authors of the proposition framed the argument in terms of heterosexual marriage. If fags are allowed to be legally married, it will lessen the meaning of straight marriage, the reasoning went.
The bill on face value is laughable (is marriage an institution that really needs defending? And how would gay marriage do harm to such an institution that has already withstood the continuous assaults of divorce, infidelity, bigamy, and of course spousal abuse?), but given more recent events, I wonder if it could be cited as a reason for prosecution of the major television networks.
After the "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?" fiasco (speaking of spousal abuse), Fox Television swore they wouldn't tread such hallowed grounds again. Of course, that was before the ratings came in. Now we have the Bachelor, the Bachelorette, Joe Millionaire, Meet the Parents, and Fox's latest assault, "Married by America."
If marriage of any type (straight, gay, or inter-species) ever needed defending, it's in need of it now, and not from teh gays. What does marriage mean anymore if it's roughly equivalent to winning the showcase thingy on The Price is Right?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a big fan of marriage. I could care less why someone gets married, or how entertaining it is to millions of Americans. But I do think fags deserve to be just as miserable as straights, and should be allowed the same tax benefits and inheritance rights as breeders. Maybe the best way to get rid of the anti-gay marriage laws already EXTANT is to use them to attack the major networks and their unending assault on marriage. Let's call bigotry and religious intolerance what it is, and may God have mercy on us all.
Amen.
The nonsense about the Bible is just spin to woo the fundy vote. To the government, marriage is a financial institution, and gay marriage merely represents a tax loophole. The government underwrites marriage through tax breaks because married heteros are far more likely to produce children who will grow up to become productive workers. A steady stream of new workers ensures downward pressure on wages and provides badly needed funding for the ailing retirement system. But the governement has no incentive to extend these tax breaks to married gays, because gays who marry aren't necessarily any more likely to start viable families than unmarried heteros.
The thing about making gay marriage illegal is that the debates, to me at least, do less in illuminating why gay marriages shouldn't be afforded the same benefits as straight marriages than they do in illuminating how arbitrary and odd it is that married straight people receive those benefits. (Run-on sentence!). The arguments I've heard against gay marriage (besides the stupid ones, like "Homosexuality is a perversion/abomination" or "Ass sex is illegal in this state.") boil down to the fact that, well if they're not having kids and raising families, what's the difference between married people and unmarried people? That they love each other? Sweet! I love my sister, as a sister. I love my best friend, as a best friend. How come we can't declare some kind of privileged status and get a tax break?
How about this case: two spinster sisters that are butt-ugly and will never marry (think Marge's sisters on Simpsons) - they have a permanent commitment to live with each other and care for each other until death. Why shouldn't they get the same benefits as two lesbians in the same situation? Because it's illegal for sisters to get married. Well, they're trying to close that argument by making it so that the lesbians can't get married either. But... (in hushed tones) why shouldn't they get the same benefits as a straight couple that never intend to have kids?
It's all kind of silly, because, as a married person, I've seen that although the marriage benefits are handy they're not enough enticement to actually *get married* - in most cases you actually take a hit. An example is the standard deduction for your income tax: it's higher for a married couple than it is for a single person, but it's lower than two singles combined. (At least we don't have to do our taxes twice.)
Anyways, INC's post mainly dealt with the idea arguments in CA, and I guess he's right. FOX has done more to damage the sanctity of the institution than all the fudgepackers and carpetmunchers in the Unites States put together. Getting married in America ain't what it used to be. There are so many neurotic viewpoints from so many corners that people can't get their head around it anymore. I got married at age 22, which is really late for my hometown (Extremely Small Town, MI), and everybody thought I was probably the perfect age, our reception was a neverending waterall of approbation, since we were kicking it old-school and that worked for our parents' generation. Now I live in NYC, where the idea of getting married before age 30 is like a betrayal of the pact that every person has him/herself to be free and independent. I see that perception as something that will filter back to middle america, and these shows are a transmitting device for that attitude. Why would anybody want to get married? Those freaks on TV get married, and why do they want to? Because they're depraved! Marriage is depravity! (said like the duck from Babe). Stupid. Reading back, I'm rambling and making no sense. Summed up: People nowadays mainly seem to get married because of pressure from their parents and friends. Gays get married because they love their partners and want to make a serious, lifelong commitment. It seems to me that gay marriage is more laudable than straight marriage, because they want to do it even though no one is telling them they should. Go gay people! |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
Defense of Marriage by I need clarification 03/03/2003, 2:24am PST 
Fag lover -nt- NT by Entropy Stew 03/03/2003, 2:46am PST 
You forgot the question mark at the end by I need clarification 03/03/2003, 2:49am PST 
I felt the rivulet of semen issuing from your mouth was punctuation enough -nt- NT by Entropy Stew 03/03/2003, 3:15am PST 
Rivulet? by I need clarification 03/03/2003, 3:57am PST 
He's implying you're a fag by I need Obfuscation 03/03/2003, 5:29pm PST 
Doesn't change the fact he used the word "rivulet" by I need clarification 03/03/2003, 7:00pm PST 
Re: Doesn't change the fact he used the word "rivulet" by Entropy Stew 03/03/2003, 7:19pm PST 
Oh yea and verily, thou art a fag by I need clarification 03/03/2003, 7:23pm PST 
UNG! by monacle-wearing caveman 03/03/2003, 7:34pm PST 
Well by Senor Barborito 03/03/2003, 7:42pm PST 
The terrorist has won. by Fussbett 03/04/2003, 1:15am PST 
Calm on down, ev-ery-body! by Senor Barborito 03/04/2003, 11:04am PST 
Re: The terrorist has won. by Cal Trops 03/04/2003, 11:00pm PST 
Hooo hoo hoo HAAAAAHHHH -nt- NT by Entropy Stew 03/03/2003, 7:43pm PST 
Also, points off for me misspelling feces -nt- by Entropy Stew 03/03/2003, 8:43pm PST 
Re: Oh yea and verily, thou art a fag by junior allen 03/04/2003, 9:07am PST 
Wow, you burned me by I need clarification 03/04/2003, 8:21pm PST 
Right, because one short thread = endless -nt- by Sensei Chairman Kaga 03/04/2003, 8:23pm PST 
Hey, then you can get married! by Bill Dungsroman 03/04/2003, 11:29am PST 
You've got to be fucking kidding me. by I need clarification 03/04/2003, 8:19pm PST 
No, Caltrops is better by I need obfuscation 03/05/2003, 11:35am PST 
Re: No, Caltrops is better by Bill Dungsroman 03/05/2003, 3:10pm PST 
I couldn't have said it better myself by I need clarification 03/05/2003, 3:55pm PST 
I feel like doing a cNo breakdown by Bill "Whore" Dungsroman 03/05/2003, 5:19pm PST 
Let's clarify something here. by Mischief Maker 03/09/2003, 11:45am PST 
You forgot a part... by I need clarification 03/10/2003, 6:43pm PST 
Re: Defense of Marriage by Lufteufel 03/03/2003, 3:15am PST 
Re: Defense of Marriage by FoK 03/03/2003, 9:14am PST 
Re: Defense of Marriage by Bill Dungsroman 03/03/2003, 10:34am PST 
Er, what? by laudablepuss 03/03/2003, 12:08pm PST 
PUS versus PUSS by Fussbett 03/03/2003, 1:47pm PST 
Or not. by laudablePUSS 03/03/2003, 4:00pm PST 
Phlogiston. (nt) by Zseni 03/03/2003, 4:29pm PST 
Re: Phlogiston. (nt) by laudablepuss 03/03/2003, 5:16pm PST 
logastellus? (nt) NT by Mr. Palomar 03/04/2003, 10:25am PST 
It only goes one way. -nt- by laudablepuss 03/04/2003, 10:41am PST 
Well, that was pretty funny. by Fussbett 03/03/2003, 5:08pm PST 
Re: Well, that was pretty funny. by laudablepuss 03/03/2003, 5:18pm PST 
A sad denouement to a fantastic spelling debate. by Fussbett 03/03/2003, 5:38pm PST 
Fussbett the new subcom? NT NT by Senor Barborito 03/03/2003, 5:42pm PST 
Re: A sad denouement to a fantastic spelling debate. by laudablepuss 03/03/2003, 6:09pm PST 
Re: A sad denouement to a fantastic spelling debate. by Fussbett 03/03/2003, 6:21pm PST 
Dude I totally nailed your mom after reading this NT NT by The Other Game 03/03/2003, 5:45pm PST 
Wait for it... by Entropy Stew 03/03/2003, 5:59pm PST 
Nay. by laudablepuss 03/03/2003, 6:15pm PST 
Re: Nay. by Ray, of Light 03/03/2003, 6:26pm PST 
Not likely by Entropy Stew 03/03/2003, 6:31pm PST 
Merriam Webster succinctly weighs in. by abrit 03/03/2003, 8:08pm PST 
Hye, I messspeled mi own fuking nic. -nt NT by arbit 03/03/2003, 8:54pm PST 
I DON'T NEED YOUR CHARITY, FAGGOT -nt- by laudablepuss 03/05/2003, 1:08pm PST 
Well, my two thread being right streak is over by laudablepuss 03/04/2003, 10:23am PST 
Never underestimate the power of my Big D -nt- NT by Entropy Stew 03/04/2003, 6:16pm PST 
Bullshit by I need clarification 03/03/2003, 4:07pm PST 
California: a case-study in crazy-ass idealism by Ray, of Light 03/03/2003, 6:22pm PST 
|
|