(no subject)

[nonelvis]

Stolen from someone else on my flist, but some of you may not have seen this yet; I certainly hadn't.

I would really like to make every person who supported Prop 8 watch this video and explain themselves. I dare them to defend their mean-spirited actions, and tell me why allowing two men or women who love each other to marry somehow harms or lessens my heterosexual marriage, and will cause the downfall of society. Because the last time I checked, society was still here in Massachusetts, and so is my perfectly happy marriage.

Comments

[profrobert.livejournal.com]

I saw this last night and thought it was amazing. I had the same "Do unto others . . ." thought about the Yes voters.

I was thinking, "So you're opposed to gay marriage because homosexuality is a sin? So all sinners should be forbidden from marrying, right? Well, according to your god, everyone's a sinner, right? So no marriage for anyone, right? Oh, wait, you say it's only certain types of sin that relate to sex? OK, how about adulterers? Should they be forced to divorce? How about fornicators? If you fornicate with someone, should you be prevented from marrying your co-fornicator?" And then I had to stop thinking about it, because I was getting so pissed off at all the moron religious hypocrites.

[nonelvis]

You and me both. As usual with the ultra-religious, logic fails to apply.

[chanfaina.livejournal.com]

I generally agree with you, and you know how much of a hot-button issue this is for me, but I do need to point out that it's just some (I will even go with "most") of the ultra-religious folks who are being irrational. I know a bunch of ultra-religious Christians and Jews (congregants, plus a minister and a rabbi) who believe in such radical notions as love, forgiveness and tolerance. And there were a lot of vocal Mormons who stood up in favor of equal rights -- opponents of Prop 8 delivered stacks of ribbon-bound petitions and carnations to the church headquarters (http://www.gaylesbiantimes.com/?id=13315&from=rss), and continue to to take action against discrimination (http://signingforsomething.org/blog/). (Some have even resigned from the church, which is a hell of a poweful statement.)

[nonelvis]

Fair enough. I probably should have been more precise, or omitted the reference to the ultra-religious, even though most of them are really pissing me off right now. (Well, pissing me off in general, I suppose.)

[chanfaina.livejournal.com]

Oh, you and me both. [And let's not forget the bigoted athesists and agnostics. What's their excuse?]

[nonelvis]

Ignorance and stupidity.

[seekingferret.livejournal.com]

This is, I suspect, one of the reasons that many Orthodox Jews are reluctant to embrace Zionism and Israel. Judaism built up a nice wall between itself and the consequences of its laws in the form of the principle 'Dina demalchuta dina'- the law of the land is the law. That is, we can ignore what our law tells us in many cases if it is different from the law of the land we're living in. If there were a true Jewish theocracy in Israel, the answer to your question is that adulterers wouldn't be forced to divorce- they'd be stoned to death. If you fornicate with someone, you would be FORCED to marry that person. Etc...

But dina demalchuta dina means that as long as we're in America, we can support things like gay marriage as the price of living in a country we don't rule. It's a convenient way to have our cake and eat it, too. I can comfortably say that even though homosexuality is against my Bible and I don't think any religious Jew should commit homosexuality, civil gay marriage is not something I have interest in opposing.

But I want to retort to your refutation by at least pointing out that there is a difference between not stoning adulterers and codifying legally sanctioned adultery, with benefits accruing to adulterers, into the law. Trying to conflate the two is pretty cheap, don't you think?