Thursday, August 11, 2005


After posting my last post, I was browsing the technorati tags on Gay Marriage, and I ran across a blog called "Hispanic Pundit".

This fellow really is a few crayons short of a full box. :-/

For instance, not only can he not grasp in his post "Gay Marriage Is Not About Equal Rights For Gays" that there are fundamental differences between the reasons why gay marriage is not allowed and why marrying your biological sister is not allowed, or why polygamous marriage is frowned on by the government. Now, mind you, first off polygamous marriage has actually been historically BY FAR the norm. It is actually natural and makes sense in the context of nature, and hence was up until relatively recent times, and generally everywhere outside of Europe and the U.S., the predominant form of marriage and relationships.

The government simply wanted a simple concrete standard definition of marriage, and so chose the simplest one that was in vogue at the inception of our country, based on the current European concept of marriage at the time, which was between a single man and a woman as laid out in the Bible. This was not the case for most of the rest of the world. Changing this now would require a massive reworking of everything related to marriage from the ground up to account for an arbitary number of spouses. Rather than as in the case of same-sex marriage, simply changing the wording to "between two legal adults".

As far as marrying your sister, this has to do, quite simply, with Genetics. The government doesn't want you purposefully breeding web footed deformed babies. Obviously in the case of same sex marriages, this isn't an issue. And just as a matter of stating a fact here, same sex marriages are PROVEN to provide more stable environments for children than heterosexual marriages, due primarily to the fact that most homosexual couples are affluent and well off, and that any child brought into the family is generally a well planned for and very wanted child. Homosexual marriages, for all intents and purposes, don't have "oopsies" babies.

Also, our Hispanic friend can't seem to fathom in his post "Is Gay Marriage A Civil Rights Issue?", that homosexuality is not just a choice. It's part of who you are. And just because you try to act differently, doesn't change who you are. And repression of who you are because it doesn't fit what society wants you to be, doesn't change who you fundamentally are, as many homosexuals who have finally "came out" later in life could tell you. They had felt wrong, and sick, and depressed and unhappy and all kinds of things their whole life because society had shoved it down their throats that being gay was bad. That it was wrong etc. Which we know is not true.

When finally later in life they end up getting divorced, leaving behind their family and finding someone of the same sex and simply being themselves, they feel incredible. Happy, relaxed... they just feel right. It's sad that they have to spend a portion of their lives trying to force themselves into a mold of what they think they're supposed to be because an ignorant society based primarily on outdated and just plain wrong religious dogma has pushed upon them that who they are is wrong, that how they feel is a sickness. And that it takes them until later in life when they finally can't take it any more and take that giant step and finally realize what was right all along.

Would me personally abstaining from sex make me any less heterosexual? No. That is silly to even consider. Would my sexual desires just cease to exist because I'm not physically having sex with a woman? No. Would me marrying a man and even having sex once in a great while make me gay? No. This is just a distinct lack of understanding of human sexuality and psychology on the part of our Hispanic friend.

I'm sorry to say, but it's sad that someone can be that oblivious to reality in an attempt to justify their own bigoted point of view. Of course it's no shock at all that he's a Republican. I'd hazard that he's Christian too. But that's just a guess.

(Now mind you, to be fair, having read more of his blog, I think he's generally on the right track with most things. He seems to try to keep his facts in check and rationally approach situations. Which actually puzzles me as to how he can be so clueless on this topic. I just like to give credit where credit is due, having been reminded oft times by my friends that even the ignorant people I choose to bash on about topics like this are generally a good deal more intelligent than the average person. So with a nod to Dale Carnegie, I give a nod to the Hispanic Pundit.)

/ / / / / / / / / / /

No comments: