Wednesday, March 27, 2013

because I enjoy stirring up controversy

Social media platforms are hot with controversy right now thanks to "The Supreme Court on Wednesday offer[ing] at least a measure of support for doing away with the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which denies legally married same-sex couples the same range of benefits provided to heterosexual partners." [cnn.com]


Gay marriage has always been a topic that I could have endless arguments with people over. I don't enjoy arguing; it's awkward, tiring, and most of the time isn't even necessary. And quite frankly, I'm already tired of hearing about it, mainly because people posting Facebook statuses aren't going to do any good. The Supreme Court isn't logging every Tweet or Status Update and counting them as votes. 
Regardless, I wanted to discuss it briefly because this particular topic gets me heated to the point of steam eventually exiting my ears, Looney Tunes style. 

I'm not a liberal, I'm not a republican; I have my thoughts on certain issues, not all of which fall under a particular label. The fact that this country categorizes themselves into political cults groups is a whole other bag of issues. 

I hardly watch the news as it only tends to depress the hell out of me, so I didn't even have any idea what was going on when Twitter and Facebook blew up with articles, pictures, and pages. And in an effort to not sound like an idiot when I [so willingly] shared my opinion on this topic, I researched. Granted, it was via the internet, so who knows what's right and what's wrong. But I at least tried. 

The following are arguments I found from opponents of same-sex marriage and my gut responses to them. 

WARNING: if you don't want to hear it, or if you are going to read it and then bitch at me later, do us all a favor and go away now. Press that red "X" at the top-right of your browser.  
Because I have absolutely no intention of hurting anyone's feelings or offending them. Consider this your official warning.
*If you read it anyway and are offended, pissed off, or want to bash my head into a wall, that's your own damn fault and I'll be more than willing to let you know that.

10 Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage and My Sarcastic-Slash-Irritated Retorts

Argument #1: That same-sex marriage would destroy the institution of marriage.

The fact that this is even considered an argument at all is more annoying than Janice from Friends
First of all, claims that it will destroy the 'Institution of Marriage' are ridiculous since these people will be getting married. It's doing nothing to the 'Institution' other than extending the definition to add 'two women or two men.' That's it. 
The argument in this case is simply that it will change the definition, not the institution itself. If we're going to say same-sex marriage would ruin the institution of marriage, shouldn't we also say that the 50% of married folks - straight people, mind you - who get divorced, are too ruining the institution? Nowhere in the bible does it say that divorce is cool. Yet it's still legal, correct? People disagree with it, sure, but that doesn't mean that the option isn't THERE.
That's just the point - it's at least an OPTION for them. Any moron can get married at the drop of a hat. Any straight person can get drunk in Vegas, meet someone at a bar and decide it's a great idea to get married, only to regret it the next morning. But a couple who actually love each other and have lived together for years, aren't allowed to wed because it's against the law. This is no more than people being afraid of change. Because since the beginning of time, we've only allowed the 'institution of marriage' to be thought of as between a man and a woman. 

This small minded theory only brings us back to the days when it was socially acceptable to have slaves, women were property, and neither had equal rights to white men. 

Argument #2: That if same-sex marriage is legalized, polygamy will follow.

Wh....what?  

Argument #3: That same-sex marriage would make heterosexual divorces too easy.

I honestly don't understand what this one's even about. I literally cannot pull a reason out of my ass that would make divorces easier because same-sex marriage is legal. 

Seriously. I've got nothin'. 

Argument #4: That same-sex marriage would require schools to teach tolerance.

Even if this were the case - and who knows if it would be or not - how is that a bad thing? We don't want to teach our kids tolerance? Are you freaking kidding me? 

Right. Instead, let's teach our youth to ostracize others because they're what society considers 'different.' Let's teach them that it's okay to let one group of people do one thing, but not another. Let's teach them that not everyone deserves the same rights, despite our constitution claiming we do.

Our schools teaching tolerance shouldn't be an argument AGAINST same-sex marriage; it's an argument to SUPPORT IT!

If there's one thing I hope my future generations will learn, it's that we need to accept all people for who they are, not who we think they should be

Argument #5: That same-sex married couples would be able to adopt.

First of all, same-sex couples can already adopt, married or not. It's just a lot more complicated. And they should be able to adopt. If you disagree with this, please go to Wal-Mart on a Saturday and enjoy the view of the dysfunctional 'normal' families with kids. [If that doesn't prove my point, I'm certain I won't be able to convince you at all.]

Of all the idiots in this world that are allowed to have children, I think that same-sex couples - who have to work 10 times harder to adopt or use a surrogate - are the least of our worries. 

There are thousands of children in foster care or waiting to be adopted who need a stable home. There are babies who are left in dumpsters, abandoned in hospitals, beaten by their current parents; you cannot possibly tell me that these innocent lives are better off in those types of situations, than in the comfort of any stable home - be it a single parent, married couple, or same-sex couple. 

Argument #6: That foster parents would be required to pass sensitivity training.

My husband and I considered fostering for quite some time after finding out that having children was going to be much more difficult than we ever thought it would be. After talking to several friends and professionals who had experience in the field, we decided we were simply too young to undertake such a task. However; in the process of all of this, we discovered a lot of interesting facts about foster parenting.

One of which being not all foster parents are created equal. Apparently, no matter how hard it may be to believe, some people foster children simply for the tax benefits and monetary compensation. These people may or may not be open to 'sensitivity training' but I think we can all agree it would be useful in most, if not all, cases. I know that my husband and I, had we decided to go through with fostering, would have been 100 percent open to the idea of 'sensitivity training'. In fact, I think it should be part of the process. If you're going to bring a child into your home that you neither birthed nor raised, I don't believe you have any right to tell them who they should or shouldn't be. [not that I approve of birth parents telling their kids who they should be, but hey - it's your kid.] This, of course, doesn't apply to allowing theft, bullying, imposing harm or general lack of respect on any other person. You get what I mean.

But if the young boy who's staying with you confides in you the fact that he likes other boys and has no idea what that means or why he has those feelings, there should at least be a basis of information on how to deal with it.  It shouldn't just be "no you're not, you're just confused." 

That's not an appropriate answer and it sure as hell isn't a solution, especially in the eyes of a child. 

Argument #7: That Social Security can't afford to pay for same-sex couples.

I'm not going to pretend like I know jack about this topic, but from the sounds of it there's not going to be much in the way of additional costs - if anything, and it could potentially help the economy [hello, wedding ceremonies].

Here are a few articles if you care to read more about it:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-26/what-is-the-fiscal-impact-of-gay-marriage-.html
http://www.learnvest.com/2012/06/how-would-legalizing-gay-marriage-affect-the-economy/
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=BC11A02

The gist of this argument is that opponents of same-sex marriage don't want to pay for spouses when the other dies, medicare, food stamps, etc. But I'll tell you right now, I don't want to pay for ANY of that shit. I don't want to pay for the morons who decided  to have [or accidentally had] kids when they couldn't afford it. But I do anyway. I am MUCH more willing for social security to go to those people who actually need it, and I refuse to disclude any group based on their sexuality, religion, or skin color. Not a huge fan of paying for prisoners, either, but that's a blog for a different day. 

Argument #8: That legal U.S. same-sex marriage would encourage its spread.
That's kind of the point, isn't it? 


At the end of the day, guys, believe what you want to believe. 
But let's all be logical.
This tired, better yet, EXHAUSTED argument comes down to one thing, and one thing only:

Basic Human Rights

It's not about me, or you, or your kid; it's about American Citizen being afforded the freedom to live their lives as equals.
That's really all it comes down to. 

One love, ya'll. One love.




[the end]

No comments:

Post a Comment

Thoughts? Love to hear 'em.