Seeking joy and meaning in a joyless mind and meaningless existence

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

Say "No!" To Separate But Equal

Obviously, I support same-sex marriage whole-heartedly.  But I get tired of the "separate, but equal" language that is used by some homosexuals and same-sex marriage supporters.  If you are in a relationship with a person of the same sex, then that person should only be referred to as your girlfriend/boyfriend.  If you marry a person of the same sex, then that person is your wife/husband/spouse.  You are not "life partners"!  After all, (most of you) aren't police officers or cowpokes (outside the bedroom).  I appreciate the fact that the term "life partner" and its iterations are most often used to show respect to same-sex partnerings, but I don't agree with tedious, politically-correct terminology.  Call a spade a spade.  There is no need to separate ourselves through language, and the real progress in recognition of our relationships will be measured when these artificial terms melt away.

A Chick-In-Shit Response

Speaking of same-sex unions, the president of Chick-Fil-A recently came out against same-sex marriage.  Dan Cathy is certainly entitled to his own opinion, of course.  We live in America, and I don't buy into the mentality that free speech is all right as long as you don't disagree with me.  But it never ceases to amaze me how these religious fundies presume to know the mind of God.  Presumption is a sin, after all.  When Jesus was tempted by Satan, one of the temptations was, "If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence: For it is written, He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee: And in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone." (Luke 4:9-13)  Satan was attempting to tempt Jesus into presumption.

Dan Cathy states, "I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about."  If these people are so concerned about the traditional definition of marriage, then according to a historical and cross-cultural analysis, including what is in the Bible, they should be defining marriage as between one man and multiple women!  (Genesis 4:19, Genesis 25:1-6, Genesis 29:21-29, 2 Samuel 12:8, 1 Kings 11:3 and more...) 

The idea of marriage as being a union between one man and one woman is a recent, Western concept.  The idea of marriage being union being an equal partnership between a man and a woman is an even more recent, even more Western belief.  All those women screaming about the sanctity of marriage should be resigning themselves to complete subservience to their husbands.  If they believe they should have an equal say in the marriage, then they themselves are redefining "traditional marriage."  My point is, marriage as we know it today would be unrecognizable in Biblical times, so a continual evolution of the concept to include same-sex unions is not as radical as they would have you believe.