Here's a little hint to bigotted dumbasses.

[demiurgent]

When you make a statement like "if we allow homosexuals to marry -- what's to stop the broadening of marriage laws further? What's to prevent people from marrying their animals?" You're equating homosexuals to subhuman status.

You are saying that their happiness, their relationships and their lives are bestial.

You're not just being offensive when you do that. You're taking human beings and reducing them to chattel.

If there is a Heaven and there is a Hell? Doing that shit should be what sends you to Hell.

If you're right and you get to go to Heaven? I would rather go to Hell.

Comments

[ryuko-midori.livejournal.com]

What is the difference between consenting and not consenting!?!?! WHO KNOWS!?

Let's be watching our drinks around people who bandy about statements like that.

[roniliquidity.livejournal.com]

And our pets.

[demiurgent.livejournal.com]

"If I let you two marry, what's to stop me from marrying my pet next? Huh? Answer me! This is not a rhetorical question! I... I get so lonely...."

[archangelbeth]

If the pet is 18 or over and can be certified as mentally competent to consent to a legally binding arrangement like that? Dude. Marry the pet, then! I don't care. Doesn't bug me so long as there's no abuse going on.

[letiwolf.livejournal.com]

If the pet is mentally compentent to consent, then calling them or treating them as 'a pet' is legalizing slavery. You can't marry your pet, because if they're something worth marrying, they're not a pet*, or morally shouldn't be.

*except perhaps under the rules of Safe Sane and Consensual, but that's another issue entirely.

[archangelbeth]

That's a very good point. I should've thought of it. (I was mostly operating from the perspective of "I don't think that Lassie is going to be certified as mentally competent to enter into a legally binding agreement.")

[letiwolf.livejournal.com]

Moral theoretics, posing impossible ethical dilemmas just for fun. :)

[roniliquidity.livejournal.com]

Right, and next my cats and I are going into business together.

Tell them animals don't have thumbs, so they can't sign the paperwork. I'm not sure that kind of idiocy can be reasoned with.

[miyaa99.livejournal.com]

Normally, I'd be indifferent about such an issue.

That was before my father left my mother after she caught him having sex with another guy. Now I'm home, my mother is utterly devastated, and I'm left trying to please her like a puppy so she doesn't completely take it out on me because of my father.

Because of my state's stand on homosexual union and how it has recently evolved, my father could possibly go ahead with the divorce, and marry his one true love in Iowa. I wouldn't be surprised if the Missouri State Supreme Court overturns the state constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Heck, I could see the Federal Government overturning such a man and woman marriage agreement leaving only an Amendment to the Constitution as the move of last resort left.

To many, it's not that homosexuals aren't subhuman, but the act itself is what would be considered subhuman. It's subhuman because two men or two women can't create a baby without external help. (And really, that is what it boils down to even on a religious level. You have sex to make babies and thereby continue the human race. The pleasures of sex is just a good by-product of the intended purpose of sex.) Most who are opposed to homosexual unions that I've heard are more concerned about marriage of one man and two women or two men and a woman, a polygamous marriage. The whole marriage between a man and a sheep is just them being stupid, although between you and me, fucking a sheep or a heifer (young cow) happens a lot more on a farm than you'd think. (And besides, I heard on one of the Adam Carolla podcasts that he's heard of a woman marrying the Eiffel Tower in Paris. Not sure if it's actually true, but being married to an animal isn't the stupidest thing people have done yet.)

Honestly, I'm still trying to sort this out, and the discovery that my father is gay doesn't help matters at all. Actually, I'm more confused than ever.

[archangelbeth]

My sire brought home his boyfriend(s) more than once. I don't despise him for preferring guys (bi-to-gay, I'd place him; he had four kids, after all). I despise him because he promised monogamy, he promised respect, he promised love, and he was a filthy liar, emotionally abusive, and sometimes physically abusive to my mom.

Makes me wish I was the mailman's, but no, my mom swears not. Dammit.

Despite that... Maybe even because of it? (Some of the gay guys he brought home -- either as lovers or eye-candy, I honestly don't know -- were actually pretty sweet guys. Only one of them, I think, was actually aware that my sire was not engaging in permitted polyamory but was instead perpetrating non-consensual adultery. And that one was a jerk for going along with it.) Anyway, I'm actually all for same-sex marriage. Homosexual doesn't equal slime. Slime equals slime, and homosexuality is no protection against someone just being a jerk, same as any other human.

Got no clue if that'd actually help you. But you're not alone. (I danced when my mom filed for divorce.)

[demiurgent.livejournal.com]

First off -- I am very, very sorry about your home situation. Honestly, and seriously, the last thing I want to do is add to your pressures.

The problem with the above argument is that a marriage isn't sex. A marriage is a million things, and sex is part of it, but it's not the sole definition.

The secondary problem is sex is not an act of procreation in our culture. It is (generally, though not exclusively) a necessary precursor to procreation, but sex has moved far, far beyond the act of creating, bearing and then raising a child.

There are religions which disagree -- and which furiously rail against anything that removes the procreative aspect of sex. There are still those who want to outlaw contraception (and still places it is outlawed), as well as outlaw any acts, regardless of whether they are heterosexual or homosexual, that bring forth the pleasure of sexuality without the procreative aspect.

But the love that two people share for each other -- especially the love that results in a marriage -- is not bestiality. If I love another human being, want to be with them, want the world to know that I love them, want to give them all the rights and benefits that a declaration like marriage allows -- if I want to marry that person, then comparing my love for that person to marrying an animal is revolting.

If someone said that about my own marriage, I would beat them to a pulp. No one but no one gets to compare my wife to an animal. I'm not usually atavistic but I get... tetchy when it comes to the woman I love.

And I won't stand by and let someone comparing the love that two people have found -- two thinking, rationalizing human beings -- to cattle abuse or marrying a dog. It's offensive. It's wrong. A homosexual is not subhuman, no matter how uncomfortable a homosexual sex act may make us. A homosexual is not an animal.

(The deeper level issue comes down to the religious objection to pleasure, and the homophobic response that most people have to gay sex. The former argument should be entirely null and void in our free society. The latter argument is specious -- "eww! It's icky!" isn't a reason to legislate something that you're not being asked to do.)

I couldn't not answer you, but at the same time I really don't want this to sound like I'm coming down on you. Your family is having a rough time right now, and I hope for the best for all of you.

[elmo-iscariot.livejournal.com]

It's subhuman because two men or two women can't create a baby without external help. (And really, that is what it boils down to even on a religious level. You have sex to make babies and thereby continue the human race. The pleasures of sex is just a good by-product of the intended purpose of sex.)

Right. Which is why so many states have passed laws and amendments preventing the subhuman act of marrying a sterile person.

Personally, I don't think we go far enough to stop this insane, selfish atrocity--some married couples actually _choose_ not to have kids, in a clear fuck-you to all the ways of God and man. We should be sending cops to their houses to force them to conceive at gunpoint. Hell, why do we even tie this to marriage? There are tens of thousands of women out there who've passed puberty but still aren't popping out any babies! Some of them actually _promise_ not to have sex! Can you believe that? What unmitigated, intolerable selfishness! Don't they know we have to continue the human race here? I say we form mobile mommy-vans dedicated to cruising for unpregnant women and girls and showing them the real purpose of their lives!

There's a celibate storm coming. And I am afraid.

[harukami]

I want to start this reply with saying I don't mean this offensively in the slightest. You're going through a hard time and I'm deeply, deeply sorry to hear that. My family has been through multiple divorces -- multiple on my mother's side, multiple on my father's side, and it's incredibly painful and incredible fraught with betrayal regardless of how it came about.

But, as a gay person, reading comments like this when I'm reading a post on my friendslist -- yes, it hurts. Being told that what I do with my girlfriend is "subhuman" (how can it be subhuman when it's between two humans?) hurts. And yes, even if you address it generally, to the air, as "to many", it is addressed to me; I'm a homosexual. I engage in homosexual acts. By that definition, to the people demiurgent refers to, I'm subhuman. By your comment, what I do is subhuman.

Here is our "gay lifestyle".

I work at a game design company as a designer. She works at Starbucks and is also a student (poltical science) at the local university. At 7:30 am my alarm goes off. Although she gets to sleep in later than me, she usually gets up until I leave the house (8 am) in a show of solidarity -- eats breakfast with me, chats a little about the day, then she goes back to bed when I leave. I work from 8:30 until 5:30; occasionally we chat on gchat throughout the day. The conversations usually involve things like "Oh, I forgot to take out the garbage before I left -- can you get it?" and "Do you mind picking up milk on the way home" and "Omg the cat is being so cute today" and occasionally about creative endeavours. It is liberally sprinkled with "love yous". She usually works afternoons or closings when she works; let's assume it's a day she's off work when I get home. We talk about our day. We check our emails and play video games and watch tv together; we talk to our online friends, and update our livejournals, and live together. We usually stay up too late because we're having fun, hit bed around midnight, sometimes later, and talk until we fall asleep. We've been living together three years now and we haven't run out of things to talk about. Sometimes, yes, we have sex too (shocking, I know). But our lifestyle isn't sex. Our lifestyle is that life: living together, experiencing daily life together. So when I hear people demoting us as subhuman, or demoting "the homosexual act" as subhuman, I feel pretty gross, because we're being a) demoted to sex; we are nothing but sex objects when "the homosexual act" is the only thing that defines us and b) even if we look at the sex, just the sex, and ignore everything else -- it's loving sex between two loving people who can laugh and get elbows in the side accidentally or put an arm on someone's hair or fall off the bed or anything else that's normal and goofy and not highly eroticised, dirty sexuality. It's normal sexuality. It's just between two women.

Your father cheated on your mother. He did it with a man. But isn't the cheating the problem here? Would it be less offensive if he cheated with a woman? If so, why? I don't think it would be okay then, ever. In either situation, cheating isn't okay. That it's made about the homosexuality -- yeah, it's troubling. And again, I feel for your situation; a lot, a lot. But please try to keep that in mind wihle you sort through it. Because not all homosexuals are cheaters -- I would never, ever cheat on my spouse. "He's gay / he cheated = therefore I have problems with gays" is a little -- I know you didn't say it, but taht's how it reads, so you might want to be careful with that sort of thing. I'm not offended or anything, but ... it's a tricky situation and if you don't feel that way about it, it'd be bad to express it that way.

Sorry for the long comment.

[blackbyrd2.livejournal.com]

I agree with Eric when he says your position is a tough one, and I'm not happy that what I'm going to say might add to the pressure. However, I can't ignore the fallacious position. What's been said here by others, in various ways, is that procreation is not the purpose of marriage. Not for a long time now. If it were, then women over forty wouldn't be allowed to marry, sterile people wouldn't be allowed to marry, and once you quit shooting out babies, you'd have to get divorced.

Marriage is about people who (hopefully) love each other wanting to spend the rest of their lives together. The legal aspect allows them to be there for each other in health AND in sickness, to share their lives, and the products of those lives, and to have the same legal rights that any married couple takes for granted.

The methods those people choose to share/show their love is no more anyone's business than it is when the couple are heterosexual. Whatever their particular kink, or lack thereof might be, that's nobody's business, so long as they are consenting, and no one is hurt. (Even that last is up for grabs, if they choose to be hurt.) To interfere in the bedroom is to start down the road which takes all pleasure out of sex, and makes it strictly for procreation, and frankly, you don't need marriage or sex for that.

Having said that, there is nothing wrong with multiple people entering into a marriage contract. Contracts do not have to be between two people, although it makes the legal niceties much easier to untangle. I've known several people involved in polyamory, and all seemed very well adjusted to me.

In the end, all arguments against gay marriage boil down to a religious issue, and religion has no place dictating what we can and can't do, especially in the bedroom. Not in the USA, anyway.

On a personal note, why is it your responsibility to keep your mother placated, and what right could she possibly have to 'take it out on you' because your father has discovered his sexual orientation and come to grips with it?
As for coming to grips with your father's orientation, have you tried talking with him about it? Alternately, have you looked into speaking either with a counselor or finding a group which provides support for people in your position? I assure you they exist.
Your father's orientation is not your responsibility, nor is your mother's issues with it. You need help and time to come to grips with what's happened, so that you can be at peace with this.

[miyaa99.livejournal.com]

Thank you for the comments and criticisms. I really do appreciate the support.

I first want to point that this isn't my personal point of view of this, I'm just telling you what I have heard others would argue against homosexuality. If it came off as my own opinion, I am sorry. I just wanted to attempt to explain how the other nutty side thinks.

I would say it wouldn't make any difference if he had a relationship with a woman or man. What really hurts is that it has gone on every since probably high school. It still is taboo here the rural areas of Missouri for a guy to admit he loves other guys. And that pains me that he hasn't figured this out. Honestly both Mom and I wish that he could have made a stand much earlier in his life, and then allow her to go back to Thailand, and me learning how to speak Thai. My mother is 63. This isn't something you discover 36 years into your marriage.

Eric, to your argument that marriage is a "million things" they would ask then what is the sole definition of marriage? This gets really into a tangent argument over whether there is such a thing as absolute truth or not, but that is not here or there.

Religious persons would mention the point I made by stating that the religious point of marriage is a sign of Christ and the Church, where Christ is a man and the Church is seen as the fair bride. But realistically, as I understand it (and I'm sure I have much of it wrong), it comes down to need to have children because the Bible's first original commandment for Adam and Eve is to be fruitful and multiply, in other words, have as many children as possible without any means to interfere with life, since that is what God does as the creator. It gets a little complicated with free will and all that, but I think that is essentially what I understand as the argument.

Elmo: Nice use of sarcasm. (I think.)
Archangelbeth: I'm not sure I'll be dancing when the divorce is completely final, but I know it's coming.
Harkuru: The first time I knew about the "gay lifestyle" was in college. My first year Freshman RA was a guy named Dean, and he was gay. I worked with his lover, who worked as a climatology section in the meteorology department. Great guys. I've met cross-dressers, transsexual people, lesbians, the whole nine yards. I never had a problem with any of them, and I don't have a problem with my father being gay. I just don't like how he went about dicking around for 36 years before he decided that he needed to do something.

I have no qualms or problems with gay or lesbian marriage. It's just that I live in an area of the country that does, and that is a problem that I don't think will be resolved soon.

And I do apologize again for offending you. It was not my sincere attempt to do so.

Blackbird: Because she needs someone to lean on someone, and I am the closest person she has at this point. I don't mind being the whipping boy, it comes with being the oldest in the family. She feels betrayed and whatever I can do from keeping her to do something completely irrational out of rage will be better for both her and my father.

Again, thank you for the comments, criticisms and support.

[andustar.livejournal.com]

Thank you for taking this all so gracefully. I have a tuppence worth to add.

The whole 'and by the way, in Europe...' thing annoys me a bit, being European myself. Believe it or not, it is not possible to marry inanimate objects, even over here. The Eiffel tower lady (http://www.independent.co.uk/extras/sunday-review/living/i-married-the-eiffel-tower-832519.html) had a non-legally binding ceremony, and then changed her surname to 'La Tour Eiffel'. That is not the same as getting married. People can change their name to whatever they like, and throw whatever parties they want. That doesn't make them married in the eyes of the law.

'it's not that homosexuals aren't subhuman, but the act itself is what would be considered subhuman.'
Because male-female couples never have oral or anal sex? I'd be willing to bet that as we speak there is more oral and anal going on between couples of men and women than between same sex couples.

'It's subhuman because two men or two women can't create a baby without external help.'
So are infertile people who can't conceive without external help having 'subhuman' sex too?

'It's subhuman because two men or two women can't create a baby without external help.
Because male-female couples never use contraception? Again, I bet there is a total of substantially more non-procreational sex going on between MF couples than same sex couples at any given moment today.

When I hear these arguments I always wonder if the people saying them live in the same world as I do. When I look around my world, 'sex' is nowhere near 100% about procreation, with everything else a mere side effect. Very few people (and certainly no one I know personally) live through life only ever being sexually active when they intend to create a pregnancy. I think what lies behind this argument is usually not much more sophisticated than an 'ewwwwwww' squick about the idea of two men together (and a 'well, it's not really actual sex' about two women, but best not to get me started on that).

[interlocutron.livejournal.com]

And then there's the one or two people who freak out that gay marriage will result in polygamy. Aside from that not really being a bad thing in itself, there's the fact that tax laws would have to be drastically re-written to accomodate multiple spouses.

Once again showing that most people against gay marriage don't seem to realize that marriage is a legal contract, not just a ceremony in a church. Once they realize that, they can no longer claim you can marry animals, children, objects, and corspes, because none of those entities can enter into contracts.

[missing-thewar.livejournal.com]

amen, brother. i hear you loud and clear and wholeheartedly agree. some people make me sick.

[scrubbo.livejournal.com]

Why doesn't hetero sex lead to marrying your opposite gendered pet?

[amhorach.livejournal.com]

I think I heard it summed up best as follows: "If you oppose gay marriage, don't marry a gay person."

Religion has no place in secular issues. Opposition to gay marriage is by and large, a religious standpoint.* A state sanctione marriage is, by its nature, such an issue. Leave the religion angle out of it entirely, any any opposition anyone has at that point in time should be gone.

*I'm sure it isn't in all cases, but I can't think of any off the top of my head, either.

I believe this sums up their arguements against:

[biomekanic.livejournal.com]

(http://s6.photobucket.com/albums/y211/biomekanic/?action=view&current=boxturtlemarriage.jpg)


I love the Colbert Report's video reaction.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

*cheer*!