Monday, August 01, 2005

A response to young Lisa's bitching.

I don't know how to link directly to a post on that stupid blog setup she has... but it's posted at 12:14am, Sunday July 31st 2005. Bitching about Gay Marriage and religion bashing etc.

From Lisa's blog:
I'm tired, so this is bound to be more or less incoherent. And probably what some might deem "unintelligent". And full of spelling mistakes! Our friend Phreadom can enjoy them.

I read a stupid article in our lovely left-leaning newspaper, The Sun. Shouldn't have done it - I knew it would make me mad.

The stupid thing was so biased, and so wrong. Good Lord - why can't people just believe whatever the hell they want to believe, and not bug other people about it? Let me say this. JUST BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE RELIGIOUS DOESN'T MEAN THEY CAN'T VOICE THEIR OPINIONS. For goodness sakes - the whole point of government is so that people of varying opinions and beliefs can be represented, not just one group of similar minded people. Everyone has opinions, and everyone deserves a say. Christians aren't going to take over the world, for goodness sakes. Stand up for what you believe in - unless it's politically incorrect. Then you're a bigoted, hateful, prejudicial person and you don't deserve a say. Arg.

Oh yes. And 75% of Canadians believe in defending the traditional definition of marriage. And so our government passes the law! Whoo! Way to be a representation of the people! Bastards.

And they also bashed a whole bunch of Christian orginizations. Why don't we abolish all of those too? Religious people shouldn't be allowed to be religious in public. Or teach what they believe, or what the Bible says. Heaven forbid.

And this is NOT an oppertunity for people to start an angry argument over the comments. I'm looking at YOU. No insults, no anything if it's going to start a fight.

End of angry rant. Tomorrow I talk about Doug.


And here is my response, as I'd like people to see it here as well, even if they don't read Lisa's blog, as it covers what I feel is an important topic, and I need to update the status of the about.com article anyway.

We're as free to call Christians (and other religious folks) idiots as they are to open their mouths and prove it.

It goes both ways. I actually support freedom of religion. I also support freedom of speech and separation of church and state. Just because you're free to believe in an imaginary sky god, doesn't give you the right to legislate your dogma based morals onto me, or force me to acknowledge your imaginary god by making it a part of my government and pledge of allegiance etc.

If you had actually read my blog, maybe you'd understand the finer points of the distinction, where I even posted an excellent article by a CHRISTIAN AUTHOR extolling the virtues of separation of church and state and common sense etc. Very well put.

Actually, I believe I'll dig it up again and post it here for you to refresh yourself. :)

And for the record, I agree with anonymous. It was the right thing to do. That much should have been obvious. But generally Christians have a hard time accepting that not everyone believes that Christians have the right to make their personal and/or religious beliefs into law to control the lives of other people. The law isn't meant to prevent things you simply don't agree with, and you saying "well god says so" is definitely not a valid argument in a court of law. Sorry.

---------

And having gone to find that article, I see that about.com has removed it, and moved all discussion of Separation of Church and State out of the Christianity section into the Agnosticism/Atheism section. Which raises an eyebrow in and of itself to say the least, considering that being for Separation of Church and State IN NO WAY makes you an Atheist or Agnostic. That's just what the Christians would like to have you believe.

You can find the original article archived here on Archive.org.

Written by a Christian author, Charles Henderson, entitled "Separation of Church and State - A Wall That Should Not Fall".

PLEASE READ IT. You should be able to figure out exactly why Separation of Church and State is a good thing, and why it's not an attack on religion. They are 2 separate things, and coming from myself, who loves to bash religious folk as they idiots they are, also firmly believes in their right to believe that. Sorry if that's hard for you to understand. It's a little thing called common sense and freedom. Just because you aren't gay, doesn't mean you have the right to legislate your morality or beliefs onto another person and tell them they can't be normal like you just because they're attracted to another person of the same sex in the same way you're attracted to a person of the opposite sex. I believe I made this very clear on my blog with PLENTY of links to relevant material, just for people like you.

Just another reason I hate Religion.

There you go Lisa, just for you.

Please, do us all a favor and read those before you either bitch anymore, or before you bitch at me for posting to correct you.

Thanks.

(I would think it would be the least you could do, considering how much work I put into that post on Homosexuality just because I knew that I'd need the relevant information to convince people like you, so I spent quite awhile one day repeatedly revising, expanding and correcting that post to make it more informative.)


Enjoy.

I might just post a copy of Charles Hendersons article as well, as it's no longer available on-line, but I think I'd need to get his permission to do so... and I'm not sure how fond he'd be of that, considering my general Christian-bashing nature, even though he and I are in total agreement on the article itself.

7 comments:

Sean said...

I don't usually chime in here, but the whole gay marriage issue and marriage in general drives me nuts. Especially considering people that argue on either side are so sadly ill-informed and generally ignorant to what "marriage" actually is.

Factoid #1: You do not have a "Right" to marriage, it is not in the constitution as a right, it is a legal formality. (If you are not an American, or live in the states you probably already have less Rights so it is probably true to you)
Factoid #2: "Government" sanctioned marriage is a "legal" contract between two people and the Government.
Factoid #3: Since marriage is a "legal" contract between three entities, and none of them is "god" or whatever you beleive. Faith should have no impact on the stance of marriage.
Factoid #4: Government sanctioned marriage was originally created after the 13th amendment of the Constitution was passed in most states, mainly in the south after the civil war. The requirement of the marrying couples to have a "license" was imposed so that practice of inter-racial marriages could be prevented.
Factoid #5: EVERYTHING stipulated in a marriage contract can be stipulated through alternative contracts and legal binders for couples of any gender combination.

So I ask why do people defend marriage as if it has some moral standing? Marriage as a contract was created to limit the rights of people not enable them.

Personally I think everyone should get over the idea of "state sanctioned" marriage. If you love someone go at it, do you really the blessing of a State or Government to acknowledge that? No.

Though as we all know it makes a great wedge issue in politics for the sheep to fight over. If you hold a passionate stance either way on "marriage" as a state instituion, you are a sheep. Read a book before you waste your breath on a hallow topic.

Phreadom said...

For the biggest reason you fail to grasp... because they want to be equal. Not treated as inferior, or sick etc.

The "right" being referred to, is the right to be able to be married and treated as a married couple, not as freaks. And actually, no, civil unions and the like are not the same... and while they DON'T offer the EXACT same benefits etc... they also fail to provide the aforementioned magic point... EQUALITY.

As someone once said... "Separate but equal is never equal."

And for you to so strongly take your stance and miss this point... I'd say that you should watch your mouth before you pipe up again. I'm not sure if you were pointing a finger at me, but if you were, that was a bad idea on your part, because as far as your "facts" go... you're mostly correct... but as far as having reasons to fight about marriage? There are plenty.

There are many financial benefits (as well as detriments) to marriage... but also things like being able to be in the hospital with a loved one... share things like insurance benefits etc... actually be considered normal and not inferior or sick... and there is also the part about a religious institution becoming a state institution... and religion still trying to control the definition of what became a legal matter of the state a long time ago. This view just brings about another discussion on the reasons for Separation of Church and State...

The main issue here really isn't one that you even remotely touched on... it's not about the technicalities of marriage itself, so much as the fact that straight couples can have it and gay people can't, because they're not seen as normal. Luckily science and common sense are finally prevailing and people are realizing that there is no valid reason to deprive a gay couple of the same rights and recognition as a straight couple. And as the Canadian law covered, the churches or clergy are not required to have any part of the weddings etc. It's a state matter being handled in the way it should be.

EQUAL is EQUAL. 2 adults who love each other and want to share their lives together and be formally and legally recognized as a couple for ALL OF THE SAME REASONS heterosexual couples do, and want to be seen as equals, not as a sickness or abnormality etc.

Starting to sink in yet?

I really don't care so much about marriage when it comes to loving someone... but it's a tradition in the sense of publically tying yourself to the person you love, for life. And there ARE psychological effects of doing so, based on cohabitation before and/or after marriage, and on your chances of maintaining a relationship when problems arise etc. And again, the aforementioned equality.

You seem to get half of the story here, but are painfully oblivious to the other half... but I suppose in the Dale Carnegie spirit, I should congratulate you on a generally impressive well above average knowledge of the topic. :-)

See? I'm not always mean. ;-)

(But inferring that I'm a sheep and don't understand what I'm talking about is a quick way to get a rude response from me correcting your fallacious assumption.)

Sean said...

Equality has nothing to do with it. You obviuosly choose to miss my stance, I don't like any form contractual marriage that involves the government.

The fight to expand or retract who has the right to sign a contract with the government to recognize their marriage is doing so because they do not know what marriage really is. Just what it "could" get them, or that they "should" have it.

You are playing a side of a wedge argument, I am sure Karl Rove appreciates it.

Lisa said...

First off, what I had written had absolutely nothing to do with what you wrote. Nothing at all. I was reading an article from the Vancouver Sun, which was basically saying that anyone with any kind of religious views should not be allowed to be in politics, and Christian orginizations were trying to create Christian clones to destroy the government.

I agree with separation of chruch and state. I agree that we should not make laws "because God says so". In fact, I never said that we should.

And homosexual people are welcome to be homosexual. I couldn't care less about it. I don't agree with the lifestyle, but I have nothing against gay people. Generally, they are very kind and friendly people, and I do have a few gay friends. But I still do not agree with the lifestyle, and have every right not to. Go ahead and be homosexual, just leave me alone about it. It's called agreeing to disagree.

When I mentioned the ruling of allowing gay marriage, I was simply pointing out that the government is in no way representative of the population. When the definition of marriage, a large foundation of communities, is being changed, it affects us all. And I believe that the government should have listened - at least asked - what the people wanted. I wasn't bitching about the fact that gay marriage is now legal, I was bitching that the governement does not care what we think.

Sometimes I wonder whether or not you read what I write.

Just because you're free to believe in an imaginary sky god, doesn't give you the right to legislate your dogma based morals onto me, or force me to acknowledge your imaginary god by making it a part of my government and pledge of allegiance etc.

Where did I say that I thought we should? All I said is that religious people should be allowed to have their opinions, and likewise to be in politics.

We're as free to call Christians (and other religious folks) idiots as they are to open their mouths and prove it.

I never said you couldn't. Go ahead.

Please, actually debate me on things that I've said. Don't put words into my mouth.

Lisa said...

I'm going to elaborate even a little more. I just read the beginning of your blog over again.

Bitching about Gay Marriage and religion bashing etc.

Arg. I was not bitching about gay marriage. I was bitching about the government. And not about religon bashing either. About people's paranoia that Christians are going to take over the government, and people's accusations that religous people shouldn't be in government.

Good grief, can't you read?

Phreadom said...

Maybe you should go read about interracial marriage. Let me know if my reference isn't blunt enough so that I can spell it out for you if need be.

Phreadom said...

Well, if you'd like to take that tack... let me clarify...

Good grief, can you read? Or more importantly, can you understand what you read? Because I'm having my doubts here.

Christians ARE taking over the government, it hit a quite obvious and blunt milestone in the mid 50's with the unconstitutional laws for "IN GOD WE TRUST" and "UNDER GOD". Did you miss that fact? Did you miss everything else that I've pointed out in detail with links to references etc? Maybe I should repost AGAIN. I think I will actually. I guess it doesn't do any harm to keep repeating facts over and over in the hopes that eventually someone will pay attention to reality.

Aside from the fact that it's obvious that you're against gay marriage, and I'd LOVE to hear to say otherwise.... considering you already think it's a sin and wrong etc... which just proves that you're fucking ignorant.

Christians HAVE taken over the government in the United States... I can't vouch for Canada.. but it's an obvious fact here in the U.S.

Don't make me clarify how ignorant and wrong you are here... because you know that I'm only more than happy to do so, and maybe in vain wishing that you'll actually GET IT for a change.

I really hate feeling that I'm being mean to you... but for as smart as you seem sometimes.. you always seem to turn around and say something really fucking stupid directly afterwards to make me wonder.

(I'm only posting this now because I missed that last comment of yours as I was posting on my way out the door earlier.)

I guess I'll just have to write another post tomorrow that addresses these issues for you.

nite nite.