The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

Vigilante Justice wrote

Quote:

I protect all free speech. That's why I'm a Vigilante.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but free speech doesn't require much in the way of protection, being free. Still, I think we know what you mean.

Can you give me your advice on something? I'm currently working on a play (likely to be performed entirely by women dressed as males) and where, in the scene I'm presently writing, Jesus returns to Earth and heads straight for Abu Ghraib prison. He (though dressed as a woman, we'll recall) finds the treatment of prisoners there to be not in keeping with certain principles he/she forwarded 2000 years ago. She/he, in what I hope will be perceived as a biblical-era sense of justice, holds down several American soldiers (in polka dot skirts, I think) and proceeds to shove a lightstick (which is wrapped in the Stars and Stripes) up their asses.

I'm concerned that this play may gain disaffection, even in a land where free speech is prized. Can I count on your vigil and support?

0 Replies

Now you've gone and done it. I'll be humming that song all night. I knew I should have left this thread well enough alone.

0 Replies

OK, now I'm confused. I Jesus a man dressed as a woman, a woman dressed as a man, or a he/she?

0 Replies

Either way, you should bring it to Texas. Leslie can star.

http://www.austinexperience.com/scenes/leslie/leslie1.jpg

0 Replies

A rare beauty. Perhaps I can write in a Donnie Rumsfeld cameo...

Act Three -
Rummie enters stage far far right. There are bright silver copies of the Liberty Bell hanging from his nipples. Singing "GreenzoneAcres is the place to be", he stops midstage, spins dramatically into the pose we see above, leans against a tank, facing audience.
Rummie: I don't do quagmires.

0 Replies

And I accused Scooter Libby of being a sicko! Smile

0 Replies

I think both of us are in need of the speech protection machismo of our new and treasured vigilante.

0 Replies

It seems likely that the following opinion has been expressed already in this thread or in some other, but even if it has been, I think it's worth repeating:
The way to resolve the gay-marriage debate, I think, is to do away with state-sanctioned marriage, all together. Marriage is an establishment of religion; the government's takeover of marriage is clearly in conflict with the First Amendment. It would obviously require a lot of work, but until it is done this debate will go on and on.

0 Replies

echi

The idea was indeed proposed earlier. I think it a fine solution too. Unfortunately, there is a crowd of folks who hold the notion that homosexuality is perverse and ought to be ostracized and inhibited not merely in speech but also via legal mechanisms.

0 Replies

blatham

Then the homosexuals would be wise to go after heterosexual marriage based on its apparent Constitutional violation. Maybe that's next on their "agenda", after they demonstrate for everyone just how unfair the current laws are.

0 Replies

Of course the essential dilemma isn't a legal matter but merely plays itself out in that arena in a constitutional democracy.

Canada is now one of five or six nations who have passed legislation making same sex marriage legal under the law (churches not bound to perform those marriages, of course) but the upcoming election will, once again, have the conservative party promising to erase that law.

The problem won't go away, for some period of time, regardless of what anyone does via the courts. It's an old prejudice and clearly quite deeply rooted. I think it is just a matter of keeping one's shoulder to it and pushing.

Heck, one day there may even be a female in the Presidency. It's long haul stuff.

0 Replies

Regardless of anything else, state-sanctioned marriage does appear to be unconstitutional. For that reason, alone, it is a matter that should be dealt with.

0 Replies

If the government would stay out of it and leave it to the churches to decide, then I guess they could fight it out one denomination at a time. Or they could just start-up their own churches. Anyway, that is the proper arena for it.

0 Replies

Churches will decide differently depending on views, some saying 'no problem' and others saying 'big problem'. And lots of folks don't belong to any church, after all. Why not leave churches out of it? Where parishoner's would prefer a church involvement, they could be quite free to follow through on that desire.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Why not leave churches out of it?

Because marriage is a religious institution. Government's involvement is relatively recent.

0 Replies

Marriage is not a religious institution under the law - it is definitely a civil legal contract that requires no religious belief of any kind. I'm, however, about to the point to suggest that men only marry men and women only marry women and if any slip up and procreate, abort all the babies, and within a couple of generations or so we won't have anybodyaround pushing these kinds of idiotic issues.

(Religious ceremonies/teachings/practices just add an additional layer to the dictates of the law.)

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Marriage is not a religious institution under the law - it is definitely a civil legal contract that requires no religious belief of any kind. I'm, however, about to the point to suggest that men only marry men and women only marry women and if any slip up and procreate, abort all the babies, and within a couple of generations we won't have anybodyaround pushing these kinds of idiotic issues. : It is not an idiotic issue if you are gay and you want to get married to someone you love and you are not allowed simply because of someone's else's beliefs.
(Religious ceremonies/teachings/practices just add an additional layer to the dictates of the law.)

0 Replies

echi wrote:

blatham wrote:
Why not leave churches out of it?

Because marriage is a religious institution. Government's involvement is relatively recent.

Are you sure? In what historical context? Even during much of American history, neither organized civil nor religious authorities were present in many communities. What of other earlier times and cultures?

http://marriage.about.com/od/historyofmarriage/

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Marriage is not a religious institution under the law - it is definitely a civil legal contract that requires no religious belief of any kind. I'm, however, about to the point to suggest that men only marry men and women only marry women and if any slip up and procreate, abort all the babies, and within a couple of generations or so we won't have anybodyaround pushing these kinds of idiotic issues.

(Religious ceremonies/teachings/practices just add an additional layer to the dictates of the law.)

May I offer a hug of sympathetic comfort.

0 Replies

Revel

I think fox just means that there are other issues of such import that this one ought to just fall away into dim memory.

0 Replies

The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know