(It seems a bit meta to be writing a blog post about another blog post. I hope you can forgive me.)
Reading this fine example of careful reasoning has me thinking about the issue of marriage. I am pleased with how this argument was made. To summarize, the linked post addresses the argument that allowing homosexual marriage will create a snowball effect that will ultimately end with polygamist marriages becoming legal,* so for the sake of avoiding polygamy, we should not legalize gay marriage. This slippery slope argument (from gay marriage to polygamy) does not hold water, in large part because the arguments for and against each of these things use completely different reasoning. Demonstrating the legal necessity of one does not establish the necessity of the other.
The issue of polygamy isn’t receiving much attention in the media, but how about it? Is it okay for people to marry more than one person? I have to confess that I see little reason this should be universally forbidden.
After all, what’s the difference between an adulterer and a polygamist? And if it’s not illegal for a married man to support a girlfriend or two and father children out of wedlock with them, how can it be illegal for him to bind himself to them according to the laws of his church? Why is a practicing Mormon with two wives a criminal while [a politician, publicly] embarrassed by the discovery of his second family, is simply a punchline?
Caution: Angry late-night rant ahead. You have been warned.
The thing I hate most about religion today is that it teaches people to view the world through an incredibly twisted lens. It teaches its adherents that it’s okay admirable to reject other people’s views and hold one’s own up as inherently superior.* “You are a member of the elite—God’s chosen people. You alone have the true moral code of the universe, and everything you do to uphold this code is service to God.” To someone holding such an idea, empathy is not just unnecessary, it’s an act of defiance against one’s religion.
Take the recent Chick-fil-A debacle as an example. In the event that you haven’t heard of this, Chick-fil-A is a fast food restaurant owned by asshat Christians who oppose equal rights for homosexuals. (God sez gays are teh abominnayshinz, so tey is bad, kthxbai.) They’ve contributed to anti-gay causes for years, so it perplexes me that it’s taken this long for public outcry to happen, but there’s been a wave of anti Chick-fil-A sentiment over this recently. As a result, corporate sponsors (the muppets) have removed their support for this “biblical values” company, and many individuals have announced that they will be boycotting it. Not content to let supporters of equality express their outrage unanswered, religious apologists have responded by saying, essentially, “Chick-fil-A should be allowed to express their values, just like everyone else,” calling for a “National Eat at Chick-fil-A Day.”
GOProud, the gay Republican Tea Party group, today “enthusiastically” endorsed de-facto Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, claiming the 65-year old is “light years better” than Barack Obama.
Republican voters have a long record of voting against their own interests. It’s really mind-boggling to me. On an intellectual level, I sort of get it; they buy into an ideology that they think is compelling, even though it has no connection to reality. Viscerally? It makes no sense to me. The modern GOP is against having a government safety net for public welfare, but poor voters still vote for Republican candidates. The modern GOP is vehemently against “big government,” but they want to write legislation dictating what you’re allowed to do with your own body. The modern GOP is pro-religious-freedom, but only if you interpret that freedom to mean the freedom to obey your candidate’s wacky brand of conservative Christianity. The modern GOP is pro-American-exceptionalism, as long as you have the money to qualify as exceptional—if you’re broke, it’s your own fault, so you deserve to suffer for it. And now?
“GOProud is prepared to commit significant resources to help make Mitt Romney the next President of the United States.”
Now it’s pro gay people, but only as long as they don’t expect equality. And why the hell would a gay organization support the GOP?
We think that jobs, the economy, healthcare, retirement security and taxes are all ‘gay issues,’
Call me a cynic, but it sure looks to me like this GOPround group just exists to draw suspicion away from the GOP’s “completely heterosexual” members.