Wednesday, July 11, 2007

Gay Marriage Undermines Real Marriage

This is just too hilarious to pass up; Jon Swift posted this. It seems that Deborah Palfrey's phone records have finally been made public. Prominent among those who engaged in business relations with employees of Pamela Martin and Associates is one David Vitter, a US Senator from Louisiana. The actual story itself is arguably funnier than Swift's satirical take on it.

You see, Vitter is a prominent opponent of gay marriage. He opposes it on the grounds that it undermines the sanctity of heterosexual marriage. After all, he's a morally upright defender of family values. He hates the perverted liberal message Hollywood is sending to the rest of the country. Unfortunately, it simply didn't occur to him that the sanctity of his own marriage could be potentially undermined by the fact that he was fucking other women.

The Bible's position on sex is centuries, if not millennia, out of date. There simply isn't any valid reason today for opposing homosexuality and denying gays the same rights as straights. This is especially true if you actually read the Bible; the Bible opposes sex without the intention of procreation. A Biblical purist should be just as upset with straight couples who don't have children as they are with gay couples.

While I vehemently disagree with the position, I can respect Christians who state they believe homosexuality is wrong. I have considerably less respect for those who actively try to force this view on others. I have nothing but scorn for morally-bankrupt hypocrites like Vitter. Trying to force your morality on to others while holding yourself exempt is reprehensible. He should be thrown out of the Senate; it's just a shame he won't face criminal charges.

Once caught red-handed, Vitter immediately chose to come clean with the public and confess those of his misdeeds that had been discovered. Being a good Christian, he was already off the hook because he had asked God for forgiveness. This illustrates one of the main reasons I have so little respect for Christianity. Far from being a force for encouraging moral behavior, it gives people an out for engaging in immoral acts without consequence.

5 comments:

2032 said...

"A Biblical purist should be just as upset with straight couples who don't have children as they are with gay couples."

It always strikes me that the worst anti-gay people are the ones that think things like premarital sex and contraceptives are okay for straight people, but gay sex is wrong because it's unnatural or doesn't lead to procreation. I guess there aren't a whole lot of people who hold such contradictory views, but it certainly seemed like they did in high school. I digress...

Just An Outsider said...

It's easy to hold contradictory views when you haven't put any actual thought into developing them. Young adults, especially, often times simply haven't had the time or experience to develop their own opinions. They settle for parroting what they've heard others say.

There are plenty of adults who are too lazy to develop their own opinions also. They have a tendency to watch Fox News

2032 said...

As an avid reader of a number of blogs who happens to be a young adult, I resemble that! Er, resent...

Really though, sometimes it is just easier to avoid trying to think for myself. A good example is charity:

Volunteering for Habitat for Humanity or donating to UNICEF are basically good things to do, right? Habitat for Humanity is a non-profit that builds affordable housing to "eliminate poverty housing and homelessness". UNICEF is a secular charity that seeks to "overcome the obstacles that poverty, violence, disease and discrimination place in a child’s path." But isn't it possible that charitable efforts can actually harm society? Does charity create a dependent class of people, who miss important opportunities to help themselves when they seek help from others?

You could answer that by looking at different ethical theories, but which one? How do I know what I can do to promote the greatest good? Why do I even want to promote the greatest good? Maybe the greatest good is something I can only bring about in my own life? (Hopefully I'm not just plagiarizing those questions from the preface to my ethics textbook.) Modern academic institutions (ie, community college) just leave me baffled at how I am supposed to pick from different ethical theories when they are all advocated by people who are so much more competent at deciding things like this than me...

And then once I've done that, I still have to decide which views on all kinds of issues are the most consistent with my new value system, which seems to require expert knowledge about practically everything. Maybe the above is a bit of an exaggeration, but it's just so hard to understand what is right. Blogs and other, err, authorities like them are so much simpler...

Just An Outsider said...

I fail to see the resemblance. Listening to others is a good thing; you don't want to try and develop your world view in a vacuum. I mean, there's a difference between listening to others and letting them tell you what to think. The problem comes when you choose to just blindly accept a pre-made world view and refuse to let anything alter it. Or, you grab onto excuses to justify prejudices regardless of their consistency.

Your views on any given issue are mostly irrelevant. They'll often change as you hear new takes on those issues from other people. What's important is to establish a basic value system. While far from perfect, the Golden Rule is a good starting point. But, the actual nature of your value system is also mostly irrelevant if you apply it consistently.

Also, remember, it's alright to change your mind. On complicated issues you will likely never be 100% sure of your position. Don't worry about it, just make the best decision you can with what you currently know. That's all the rest of us are doing.

Rachelle said...

People should read this.