The important fact here is that politicians are not entitled to talk about marriage in its religious aspect. I mean, they can, as people, but they have no specific authority about it in their roles of politicians. No politician is a relevant actor of the Catholic faith, for instance, unless he also happens to be a priest or some other member of the clergy.
That is where I wonder about why all the fuss. If homosexuals are allowed civil union, what more do you want? Religious marriage? Well thatís all fine with me, but you will have to address actual members of your given religion for that, provided youíre actually religious.
It certainly offends some people that the Catholic Church forbids gay marriage. But letís be serious for a second: the Catholic Church forbids its followers to marry someone of the same sex, and if youíre part of the Catholic Church, then you must share their beliefs (otherwise you would not be a Catholic) and if you do share its beliefs, then you donít want to marry someone of the same sex because you know why the Catholic Church is against gay marriage! For those of you who donít know, the Catholic Church believes that sex should only be used to procreate, not for fun or any other reason. An orgasm that doesnít find its end in creating a baby is inherently sinful, from the Catholic point of view. If you donít agree with this, then youíre not a Catholic, and therefore you donít much care what the Pope has to say or thinks about gay marriage. Right? So thereís no problem and no reason to bitch. The Pope canít force anyone to believe in Catholicism, and, it shall be remembered, he has no political power of that kind. Being Catholic is a free choice you make, or not. Otherwise you can be a disagreeing Catholic and then you just make-do however you can with your clerical authority, but thatís quite another topic.
Back to some more fundamentals about gay marriage. Nearly every argument I heard against gay marriage was ridiculous. Iíll try to list a few from off the top of my mind (which is all nebulous with flu-esque fog):
- Itís a danger to humanity in that it will decrease the number of humans being born.
- Itís sick.
- Itís a danger to children in that an education given by homosexuals may turn them into homosexuals too.
- Itís disgusting.
- They take it in the ass! Itís sick!
And many others I naturally forget. Letís tackle with those. The first one is just lame; we are not living in a world where decrease of our number is a real danger. Quite the contrary, and everyone knows this. Secondly, just because homosexuals canít marry doesnít mean they will fall back on a woman (or man) and make babies. As an aside, if homosexual couples were allowed to adopt children, they would do the job of any parents. Which leads me to my second point.
If homosexuals are allowed to educate children, then people are worried about the impact on the kids. It here must be said that a homosexual is a homosexual person and that this defines only his or her sexuality. You donít define yourself by your sexuality, or so I hope, and whatever you happen to prefer sexually doesnít bear much of an impact on how youíd educate a child. Would you say loving big boobs has any influence on how youíd educate your son or daughter? I would not. It doesnít mean anything; it doesnít matter a single moment what I like sexually with regards to my skills as an educator of children. This is the problem of homosexuals today: their homosexuality is perceived as more than just a sexuality; and to be fair, many gays play along. I donít think it helps the homosexual cause to try to put more to homosexuality than there is. Many think itís a lifestyle and everything, but no, homosexuality is just a sexuality; if you turn it into a lifestyle, thatís your choice and responsibility, but being homosexual, essentially, is just a sexuality. Youíre attracted to people of your gender, and thatís all there is to it. I wouldnít think itís important in raising a child, and if anyone disagrees, then let me know what part of your sexual life you think would influence your children with regards to the education you give them.
The idea that homosexual parents would raise kids whoíd become homosexual is preposterous. Most homosexuals had heterosexual parents. Secondly, to make a remark like this youíd have to assume that being homosexual is bad, and perhaps it is, I donít even discuss that point here. I donít believe that children need to have exactly two parents of exactly two genders and whatever. I think a child adapts to whatever his or her family happens to be. If we lived in societies where we have 3 fathers and 5 mothers, weíd get along fine. If we lived in societies where thereís one nominal mother for the kids and every male in the tribe is a father to them, weíd get along fine as well. There can only be a difference if, in a given society, you have either less or more parents than others; but itís only comparative and so, in reality, it doesnít affect the children very much. There are other factors which would affect a child a lot more. Say having abusive parents, or unloving parents. Best to have one good parent than two bad ones. Best to have two homosexual loving parents than two unloving heterosexual ones. So the deal is this: if you want to forbid parenthood to a certain category of people, homosexuals, then I want my own categories not to be allowed parenthood too. That would include idiots and unloving motherfuckers. I think an idiot would do a lot of damage to a child trying to raise him/her, and so that is ample reason not to allow that person to be a parent. Sounds unfair? Well, perhaps, but no more than forbidding a homosexual person to be a parent.
Where the thing becomes a total joke is here: homosexual couples canít adopt a child, but a homosexual individual can. You are allowed to adopt a child as a single person, regardless of your sexual preferences, but not if you happen to have a partner. In reality, what every homosexual wanting to adopt a child does is to adopt it on behalf of just one of the two. So it comes down to the same, except that only one of the two gets to have legal rights over the child, and thatís not an optimal situation for the child, or the other partner.
By the way, if paragraphs donít quite link, I donít care. They surely do on some level or other, even if just loosely. Bear with me, Iím ill. So, what now. Should homosexuals be allowed to marry? Letís see what happens if they are: instead of living together as concubines, they live together as married people. Big deal.
I understand that most anti-gay marriage people are so because they believe homosexuality to be wrong, unnatural, sick, perverted, etc. But even if homosexuality was all this, would that be a sufficient reason to forbid homosexual marriage? The question is worth asking. I donít have a problem with saying that homosexuality is abnormal, and donít you get all shocked and call me a Nazi. Abnormal means not normal, and normal means within the norm, and the norm is just a mathematical thing, itís a number. Itís all just a comparison of numbers, thereís no moral judgement in that statement of mine. If 6% of the population is homosexual (thatís the number I hear most often), then it is definitely not the norm. Thatís all Iím saying. There are many more things with even less people and it doesnít make it intrinsically perverted, make no mistake. Iím just saying itís counter-productive to try to pass something abnormal as normal, because it just isnít. Call a cat a cat and down with political correctness. Iíve used the word homosexual more often than the word gay because I see no demeaning aspect to the word homosexual. Things go wrong when we start to assume that everyone means more than the words they use.
See, even if homosexuality was a problem, something to be cured, well I would still not condone a ban on homosexual marriage. Mental illness is a problem, and if homosexuality truly is a problem, itís definitely a mental one, and people who suffer from mental illnesses arenít forbidden to marry. Maybe thatís too far-fetched, Iíll concede that to you, but you get my point.
I donít believe that homosexuality is a choice because I canít recall choosing to be heterosexual. It never seemed an option to me, and so, instead of believing that homosexuals make the choice of being homosexual, which is, to heterosexual, a choice against their liking, Iíd rather believe that homosexuals and me just donít have the same original tastes. Disgusted heterosexuals are so because they think that homosexuals feel the same as they (the disgusted heterosexuals) do about sex with someone of the same gender. Mistake! You guys arenít given the same bases. I wasnít given what it takes to sexually desire another man, so I canít relate to a male homosexual, but I know enough to know that thereís a basic difference and that the different taste comes from there, and not from choice, which would be just absurd. Besides, why would anyone choose to be homosexual? I donít see anything that would make that condition so appealing.
I agree to the idea that perhaps we are all mostly bisexual and define our sexual preferences because of the environment we live in, but with caution. I donít think that the environment can be so influential, as proven by homosexuals who grew up in heterosexual contexts. In most civilised countries, itís relatively ok to be homosexual, and itís not like you have to tell the whole world about it, and so thereís little trouble about being homosexual; which means that if societial pressure was the only reason not to choose to become homosexual, then a lot more people would make this choice. Thing is, they donít, because itís not a choice. Youíre either gay or youíre not, and people who came back from homosexuality are just bisexual. This is a lot more gradual and graduated than commonly perceived.
Now a word for Christians and non-Christians alike. Generally, Christians are supposed to be against homosexuality, but I would like to stress out that Jesus Christ never spoke against homosexuals, and talked very little about sexual matters, because, I believe, itís just details really. I do not appreciate Christian beliefs being used and abused to excuse psycho-rigidity and other farts of the mind. So thatís for Christians and non-Christians alike.
If homosexuality is a problem, then it must have a solution. But it hasnít a solution, meaning that you canít change someoneís sexual orientation. I donít see how I would be made into a homosexual, for instance. I donít think Iím solvable like that, nor do I believe homosexuals are. So what can we do? Force homosexuals to live a fake heterosexual life and be sad? That doesnít sound like a good plan to me, on every level of it. Whether you think itís a sin, a mental disease, or anything, the fact remains that it wouldnít help to force homosexuals to be deprived of the love they need. And donít you tell me that love has nothing to do with sex, otherwise I demand you start dating people of your own gender (if youíre heterosexual) and tell me later on that it doesnít matter what body your date had. But then again, love has nothing to do with sex, too, and so it doesnít matter what genders loving people have. Right?
Thatís the thing with marriage, I see it as the union of two souls, if those exist, and I hope they do, and for all I know, souls donít have bodies, and thus donít have genders. I readily admit I could be wrong about the angel-like state of souls as being genderless, but letís keep it that way for this here paragraph. If souls arenít gendered, then itís just your body that is, and so it doesnít really matter intrinsically what bodies youíre attracted to physically as long as you love correctly.
Meditate on the following: if we had no sexual desires, we would be neither homosexual nor heterosexual.
Then what else to say... Oh yeah, back to why gay marriage is so dangerous. Thatís something I hear often, that homosexual marriage is a threat to marriage, nation, and everything. How is homosexual marriage a threat to the values of marriage? Do they change? The values of marriage, I think, are about devotion to the other in love and respect. Whether there are two penises or just one [or none] doesnít seem to make a difference in that deal. So which values are under attack?
Generally, the idea is that the homosexual couple is a threat to marriage, nation, society, etc., because they cannot procreate. But see, thatís where itís stupid: sterile couples would then be a threat to marriage, nation, and society too, which is just equally ridiculous. And as I pointed out earlier, homosexuals couples canít raise children because they are not allowed to do so as a married couple, or just a couple. If you donít allow them to raise kids, donít blame them of that too! Dammit. Being a parent means a lot more than just shooting sperm down a womanís sex, right? In fact, that alone is not being a parent, just a fucker. Being a parent means being there for a child and educating him or her and providing for his/her well-being. Thatís a parent, and your sexuality has little to do with it.
Do you think heterosexual married couples who enjoy butt-sex are worse parents because of it? If yes, I am dying of curiosity to know how and why.
I think I said most of what I wanted to say. Iíll conclude on reminding you that homosexuality does not define people, but peopleís sexualities. Donít let someoneís homosexuality pervade throughout that whole person and define everything about them. Youíre only homosexual in your sexuality. Collecting tea-cups is not homosexual, itís just collecting tea-cups (and I use that example because Iíve seen it on TV in some silly show). Even butt-sexing someone isnít per se homosexual. Take me for instance, I could butt-fuck 20 males in a row, Iíd still not be homosexual. Know why? Because I donít desire males! No matter how many Iíd do in the butt, it wonít change how I donít feel about them. Being homosexuals is only about that: desiring people of the same sex. Being a man and doing another man in the ass is a homosexual act, but that doesnít mean you are as a person (although, granted, youíd have to be pretty weird to do a man in the butt if youíre not homosexual, but Iím talking theoretically to get my point across).
Iíll end this in those beautiful words of mine: youíre only homosexual in your sexuality.