The Gay Agenda

I figured I would go with the “buzz word” of the time, because we all know gay people want to take over the world like the Muslims do. It will be a battle of which one will destroy America first. My money is on gay people. They are much more fierce and scary when they want to be. Trust, I would never cross any of my gay friends. Never. Ever.

Most of the introduction is entirely sarcasm, except for the not wanting to cross any of my gay friends out of their sheer fierceness. That is completely true. I want nothing to do with that wrath. More so, I am mocking the idea that gay couples wanting to get married is them trying to take over America and ruin us. Do I want to see a gay couple making out in public? Absolutely not. Before you label me as a homophobe, please read this next sentence: Nor do I want to see a straight couple going at it in public. I just don’t want to see anyone using the mall bench as a place for them to pretend it’s their mom’s couch. I want no part in that. Maybe I’m a prude. Probably. But my not wanting to see it does not mean that I think it’s any of my business what they do in the privacy of their own bedroom. If a person wants 6 bedmates at the same time while reenacting scenes from “50 Shades of Grey”, I don’t need to know nor do I think it’s anyone’s business but their own. Should there be a law against this too? I suppose in some people’s eyes, as long as the man parts stay with the woman parts as God intended, then they can do whatever they want.

With the recent discussion of the Supreme Court taking up the issue of whether or not banning gay marriage is constitutional, we can see a real change in our country. This is the same change interracial couples waited for, and now the times have changed. Because of this huge step in civil rights I am able to be married to my soul mate, who’s only crime back then would have been that his mother came from a country that wasn’t in Europe. This is the next phase of the civil rights movement, created so all people would have equal rights. I absolutely think they are going to say that it is unconstitutional. This will come at the dismay at religious zealots that feel that the bible versus are something you can pick and choose what you believe. If you are going to use the bible as your life’s laws, follow everything. Otherwise you are just a hypocrite that is spreading hate.

Over the weekend, I saw “The Imitation Game”. It was a fantastic movie, and Benedict Cumberbatch was fantastic in it. (Not that you would dare question his amazing talent… right?) I was expecting those far out there religious crazies to go off on this movie being another push for the gay agenda in America. I was shocked to see so many articles about how this movie was another ploy to further push the gay agenda in hopes to destroy America. I was even more shocked after watching the movie and saying to myself afterwards “what gay agenda?” They don’t emphasize that he is gay. They mention it maybe a few times in the movie, including that horrific ending. Not horrific as in graphic, but as in as a human being I found it morally horrific what happened to him especially after watching about all the good he accomplished. Just because he was gay, he was given a cocktail of medicine to chemically sterilize him as we would do with a pedophile just because he liked men. He wasn’t the only person to suffer as a result of this “indecency law”. I’m sure those who believe that this movie pushed a gay agenda would wish us to reinstate such a horrible law, but if that’s the case I think we should be able to lock up assholes and make them suffer horrible fates as a result of how they were born to be.

In fact, I think the movie could have done more. I understand that they wanted to focus more on his achievements rather than make the movie into a political statement. I’m actually okay with that because I don’t want to go into an overly political movie when I want to just watch something entertaining. But there was so many people who had suffered like he did, while others like Oscar Wilde decided to just go to jail. And a great man killed himself because of this cruel punishment. (Though some people speculate murder, I’m going to go with injecting cocktails of medicine into a person without knowing all the side effects probably does not help matters.) They could have at least given us the real ending instead of adding his death as a side note at the end of the movie. If nothing else, that could have made a difference but again I understand the need for the movie to be about his achievements and not his personal life.

The lessons of this post? What people do in their bedroom is not your business. Who consensual adults want to marry is not your business. Imprisoning people and doping them with medicine because they are homosexual is wrong. The Imitation Game is a great movie, and you should see it. Any comments? Feel free to share.

And Then Comes Marriage

Rumor has it, the Supreme Court will rule on gay marriage today. I wanted to get ahead of this with a reiteration of my prediction in hopes that I’m correct. This will be a 2 parter, if the decision does come in after I post this for a reaction piece. All eyes of people that care will be watching for this ruling, that either way will upset a mass ton of people.

I believe in people who love each other should be able to get married. Back when marriage was just a conversation between myself and my husband, I didn’t understand why we should get married. What makes me so special that I can marry whomever I want, but other people can’t. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that “I won’t get married until everyone can get married”, because I think that’s a cop-out people use so they don’t have to get married. I didn’t understand why it’s necessary for me to get married. I’ve been married for nearly 2 years, and I still don’t really understand. Nothing has changed between us in our relationship, except that now we’re legally bound together until we pay a large price to divorce and I had to change my last name. (Why is divorce so expensive? Because it’s worth it.) That doesn’t take away from people who idealize a process like marriage as something in their dreams.

417711_10150588848513107_1129203482_nBut on that token, shouldn’t every American be allowed that dream? This picture is hilarious, but it’s true. Last time I spoke about this, I pointed out that just a few decades ago I wouldn’t have been allowed to marry my husband since he isn’t a White male. Now today, it’s essentially the same fight. Legally, what’s the big deal? I accept that people have moral oppositions to this as a result of religious beliefs. But I recall that religion shouldn’t  have a bearing on legal matters. We live in a land of law with religion, not religious law. No one is asking you to get married to a partner of the same gender, we’re simply asking that you leave people’s bedroom alone.

My theory is that the Supreme Court will legalize it, using the grounds of the Supreme Court legalized interracial marriage in 1967 stating that “anti-miscegenation” laws were unconstitutional. Telling someone they couldn’t marry another person was unconstitutional, and marriage is a right we have as humans. I end with this quote on interracial marriage and slyly point out that the justice never specified “man” or “woman” in the decision, he simply said “person”. Granted he was only speaking about race, but I can hope. From Wikipedia:

Chief Justice Earl Warren‘s opinion for the unanimous court held that:

Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

When Facebook Campaigns

It seemed like most people I knew changed their profile picture on Facebook to the red and pink equal sign. This made Facebook gaming difficult since some games only give you a profile picture, not a name, to send scores and such too. A minor inconvenience for the greater good of a cause, I’m sure. I don’t follow into these sort of things. When I think “man there’s a cause I need to support”, my first thought isn’t to change my profile picture on Facebook like everyone else to stand for a cause. I’m more of a doer, not a sit back and change my picture for a cause to show I’m involved. I don’t like to be a follower. I also don’t like Facebook trends like that. People think it matters and seem to pressure you into doing it by either bully (“do this or you have no soul.”) or by the simple psychological warfare that is “peer pressure”. No, I don’t support bullying or think cancer is awesome. But I don’t need to repost something every day to prove it.

I promise, that long-winded rant isn’t the point of this blog. I just really needed to say that. The real point was that these people were banding together in support of equal rights. I’ve posted many times on this blog about gay marriage, and I really don’t hide my support for this. This current trend of support has its reasons though: this week gay marriage is on the docket at the Supreme Court. Will they ban Proposition 8? Is the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional? Everyone is wondering which way they’re going to go with the decisions, and I flip-flopped on my opinion of what the court was going to decide. At first, I felt that the courts would just leave the issue up to the states and washing their hands of this controversial topic. After hearing some soundbites, I decided I was wrong. I believe the courts will legalize gay marriage. They will decide that what happens in the bedroom isn’t anyone’s business.

I changed my theory when I realized that at some point, interracial marriage wasn’t allowed. As someone who is happily married in an interracial marriage, I realize that my life would be completely different if it was still illegal. Thankfully, people fought for me to have the right to marry anyone I want of any race I want in and in 1967 they said that preventing this was unconstitutional. On that same idea, gay rights today is what the civil rights movement was back in the 60’s. With that precedent, it makes sense that the courts would come back saying banning gay marriage is unconstitutional. Let’s hope common sense pulls through.

I’m a firm believer that we all deserve the pursuit of happiness. The constitution promises this. There’s really no religious reason not to allow it, when you consider that religion tells you to love your fellow people. I hate to think that religion tries to teach us love, but preaches so much hate. You say the government should stay out of our lives, that the government is too intrusive in personal liberties by not allowing people to not have health insurance or guns, but telling people who they can marry is apparently perfectly fine? Then you should take a hard look at your reasoning. I hope they make a fair decision and stay out of the business of telling people who they can love and marry.

Discriminatory: The One Way Street

dis·crim·i·na·to·ryadjective /disˈkrimənəˌtôrē/1. Making or showing an unfair or prejudicial distinction between different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

prej·u·dicenoun /ˈprejədəs/
prejudices, plural

  • Preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience
    • – English prejudice against foreigners
    • – anti-Jewish prejudices
  • Dislike, hostility, or unjust behavior formed on such a basis
    • – accusations of racial prejudice
  • Harm or injury that results or may result from some action or judgment
    • prejudice resulting from delay in the institution of the proceedings
I figured prior to my post, I would give the definition of “discriminatory” to help this along. Please refer back to this if you have any questions about the word or feel free to also Google it for definitions if that would make you feel better. I don’t necessarily care if you agree with the point of view, the world would be a boring place if we all agreed. This is more of a discussion of a topic than a “that’s morally reprehensible” argumentative piece. Also, I figured giving the definition of “prejudice” would also help us move along here. Also, to give background to my post.
An uproar seemed to have occurred when the discussion to allow domestic same-sex couples to have the same benefits as married couples, despite unmarried straight couples not having this right. Some groups have called this “discriminatory”, why should gay couples have this but not straight ones? It’s 100% wrong to allow one group of people something and not others, I absolutely agree. One group shouldn’t be given preferential treatment over another, otherwise that is discriminatory. This is a fact, I can’t deny facts.
Also a fact: Most states do not allow same-sex marriage. (I hope my prior paragraph didn’t scare anyone away and set me up for hate mail.)  This is also discriminatory, since not allowing one group the same rights as another. Then does that make the previous argument null and void, since they said it wasn’t right because that act was “discriminatory” and it should be equal for everyone? Interesting how the argument turns when you see it from the other side. So, what makes one “discriminatory” and the other not. Hint: they are both discriminatory.
Though I do offer an interesting point: most states don’t allow gay marriage. I know, I used that point as a starter to the last paragraph. I use it as a different argument here. Straight couples have the right to choose to get married or not, where gay couples don’t. So why shouldn’t a domestic partnership of a gay couple of 10 years get the same benefits as a married couple for the same? It isn’t a discussion of morals, it’s one of logic. You can’t ignore this part of the argument as if by pretending gay people don’t exist they will go away. It doesn’t work quite like that, unless you’re at the cognitive level of a toddler who believes “out of sight, out of mind”.
This isn’t an argument of whether gay marriage should be legalized or not, even though I definitely believe it should be. The argument is about if it’s discriminatory to allow domestic partners that are gay the same benefits as married couples but not allow it for domestic straight couples. I don’t think it’s really fair to say, since the playing field isn’t level. If both groups were allowed to get married, then yes it would absolutely be discriminatory to allow one the benefits and not the other. However, straight couples choose not to get married and gay couples often don’t get that choice but still want to commit themselves entirely to their partner as a straight married couple would. In which case, the fact that one group of people is allowed marriage while another isn’t is truly what’s discriminatory here. You can decide.