Wednesday, June 07, 2006

Huh? Wha?

I am so embarassed that Wayne Allard is from my state. This is a guy who has supported (if not sponsored) just about every regressive, medieval, wackoloon proposal in congress. The current distraction from the administration? Marriage is under attack! Oh, yes. Those dastardly gays are trying to ruin The American Way by marrying, didn't you know?

Yeah, right. This pops up every time the poll numbers go down. I guess they hope that this will rile up the fundamentalist arm of the party and appease them so they vote "properly" in the next election. Don't we have better things to worry about?

I am stilll waiting for ONE actual argument as to how gay marriage would "damage" marriage. Oh, wait. Allard is trying to argue that gay marriage would contribute to the "epidemic of fatherlessness" in the US today. Huh? How would banning two men from marrying keep deadbeat dads around for their children? Really, can we at least try to make a coherent, logical argument?

Every "argument" that I've seen ends up being "Eeeu!". The ICK factor. Some people (who apparently think waaaay too much about what people are doing in the privacy of their own homes), are squicked out by what they think gay couples do. The whole 'defense of marriage' is based entirely on trying to enforce one particular religious view (that homosexuality is a) a chosen lifestyle and b) an abomination. Newsflash, people -- neither of these statements is anything close to factual, and not everyone agrees with your view. Making up "facts" and preposterous sky-is-falling hysteria is one sign that your position is wrong.

"We have lost our moral compass. We need to get back to the biblical definition of marriage!" they cry, awash in righteous indignation that we don't all take up pitchforks and pikes and storm the castle of rationality. The laughable thing is that they have rarely actually read the bible (except the teeny bits they are taught in church) and are woefully ignorant of just what it is they are espousing. Back to "traditional" marriage of the bible is not quite the Leave-it-to-Beaver model they seem to think it is.

First off -- let's understand that the one-woman-one-man model of marriage is a relatively modern invention and for most of human history, we have been polygamous. Men have had many wives as the norm for most civilizations. The bible doesn't abjure men to cleave to one woman, but to many. But, there are some interesting bits in the bible about the details....{the details here come from a number of posts, but I went to read the citations} Gen 29:17-28 , II Sam 3:2-5 Exodus 21:10 -- And more (Genesis 26:34, Gen 28;9, Dt 21:15, Judges 8:30...(check more here)

The reality of history in biblical times is that men had multiple wives. This was normal and acceptable. Because most (not all) societies have been male-dominated, and because women often died early in childhood, multiple wives made sense and was a cultural norm. It still is in some cultures. I don't know about you, but that's not going to work for me.

Oh -- and concubines? Sure! Can have those, too -- II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21. and many, many others. High-ranking men often had official wives (usually married for political reasons, which has been the reason for most marriages in history) and other concubines, if they could afford them. Once again, not really gonna work for me.

Only virgins can marry, of course (Deut 22:13-21) (for women only, and women who aren't virgins at marriage? Stoned to death. Men who are not virgins? Well, men are different, doncha know.

Is this beginning to sound familiar? Sounds pretty much like a middle-eastern religious-based set of laws, doesn't it? Sounds pretty much like the modern way of life in arab countries, right? Like the rules in Afghanistan? Well, it should. That is the environment in which the bible was written and collated, so that is the mindset it represents. In this particular worldview, sex is evil and women are most certainly not equal partners but should be viewed with deep suspicion and controlled completely. That's pretty much the story for most societies up to (and in some ways including) our own.

(and, if you argue that all of these citations are from the Old Testament and, well, we all know the new convenant makes those null and void...well, you better stop using all of those OT cites to prove your points in other arguments, too. Can't pick and choose.)

The people arguing for a "traditional" marriage are trying to create some made-up version of what they think marriage should be and are trying desperately and shrilly to force everyone to ignore the fact they they don't have any rational basis for their arguments. Nada.

It's all a worthless exercise, anyways. It's only on the table now to keep attention away from the problems Bush has with the war in Iraq, foreign policy, domestic policy, and pretty much everything else he's touched. The truly fanatical conservative part of the GOP is not happy with their golden boy -- he didn't merge religion and politics and government enough to please them. Hopefully, people see this whole thing for what it is: distraction and a pathetic attempt to pander to voters by lying to them.

1 comment:

The Tiger said...

Wanna save marriage? Let's ban divorce! Oh, what, now you're backing down? Don't wanna play hardball, huh? I thought we were saving marriage by defining it as one man and one woman. Forever. Remember, like it says in the vows? Where ya goin'? How'z come I can't hear you no more? .... Wimps.