{ An Autopsy of Democracy }

Thursday, March 10, 2005

Gay Marriage vs. Theocracy

I've been meaning to post on this topic for some time now. While I agree with those who pointed out that it's not that big an issue, but was seized upon by the Bush administration during campaign time as a convenient wedge issue (like abortion) that would bring out the Christian base . . . It is important when the president proposes (seriously, I now think, because he brought it up again in his second term) amending the Constitution in order to restrict people's rights. And when it's obvious that they would need to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage, because eventually the Supreme Court will rule that such a ban is unconstitutional.

What I really hate about those who oppose gay marriage is that it's all about sex. That's all it's about. Otherwise, they would be encouraging marriage since, supposedly, it's the foundation of the family and (if we were foolish enough to believe our president) the foundation of our very nation. Hmm. What you're really saying when you say you oppose gay marriage is this: I want it to be illegal for a monogomous couple who love one another to make a lifetime vow of commitment and trust, because they have deviant sexual practices.

Now, for all you conservatives who believe in "small government": you don't want the government interfering in your private life, but you think it's fine and dandy to AMEND THE CONSTITUTION in order to interfere with someone else's private life? To, in a manner of speaking, come into your very bedroom?

If we want a Christian Theocracy, O.K.; but we then need to pass a constitutional amendment forcing all rich people to give all their money to the poor; another stating that we must turn the other cheek and love our enemy (no bombs in response to 9/11) and dismantle our military; etc. etc. etc. Because, that's what Jesus would do. (Although, Jesus wouldn't get married, apparently; so perhaps marriage should just be made illegal . . .)

If we're going to legislate morality (assuming we all agreed on the same moral principles, of course—not bloody likely), here are a few laws we need to pass:

1. Ban promiscuity. Further, make all sex outside of marriage illegal and punishable by imprisonment, fines, or both. Adultery should be made illegal as well, but the penalty should be much harsher. If we're using the Bible as a guide, then stoning to death, preferrably in a public square, would seem appropriate (the same punishment as for sodomy).

2. Make all sodomy—yes, including heterosexual—illegal and thus punishable by stoning to death. We could perhaps mandate that all homes have video cameras installed in the bedroom—wait, no, every room in the house, because sex in the kitchen is uncouth and should be illegal—with the video fed to the Department of Morals in Washington for surveillance.

3. Even in marriage, sex is only for procreation—otherwise it's naughty (that is, illegal). And the main purpose of marriage, I've heard it said many times, is for having children. So we must ban all birth control, and the government must monitor sexual activity to ensure that it is being done for its proper, sacred purpose of procreation; if fertilization does not result within a reasonable period of time, the couple must divorce. Actually, a better law would be that in order to get married a couple must already be pregnant; for if you cannot have children together, then you cannot get married. (This does contradict Law 1 about no sex outside of marriage, I realize; tricky business, this legislating morality; but I'm sure Congress can hammer it out.) Actually, with today's technology, we could do away with sexual intercourse all together and simply enact Artificial Insemination legislation so that no sex need occur.

4. Moving on from sex . . . All other immoral activities must be banned. These include: smoking, drinking, card playing, dancing, swearing, masturbation (put that in with Law 1, actually), wasting time, watching television, eating excessively, eating junk food, drinking coffee, playing sports (Jesus would consider it wasting time and a distraction from God), . . .

Now, this notion that marriage is "sacred" and always has been is as absurd as the notion that marriage has always been based on "love." If we want to go back to tradition, fine. Then women are property, and marriages should be arranged by the parents. Bring back the dowry, and so on. We might also adopt the policy of suttee, like in India; if women are property, they ought to be burned with all the other possessions of the husband when the husband dies.

Another argument often made by homophobic people is that homosexuality is "unnatural," and therefore wrong (and, therefore illegal, according to these brilliant folks). Now, I can see some merit to this argument, of course; heterosexual sex is more in accord with "Nature," as it leads to reproduction, etc.

But, again, should we make it illegal to have sex if you are not trying to create offspring? And should we ban all birth control, since it is "unnatural"?

Also, here are a few other things that are clearly "Unnatural":

1. monogomy (this includes marriage)
2. abstinence

But that's just in regard to sexual matters. Really, just about everything we do is "unnatural":

1. driving cars
2. flying planes
3. wearing clothes all the time
4. remaining indoors all the time
5. killing other animals en masse in huge factories, after enslaving them for the duration of their lives
6. shooting guns, dropping bombs, etc.

And, depending on how you look at it, most of our medicine could be considered "unnatural," as it prevents the natural progress of natural disease. After all, who are WE to play God?

Furthermore, a few fun things that are quite "Natural" indeed:

1. floods
2. draughts
3. hurricanes
4. earthquakes
5. tornados
6. tsunamis
7. forest fires
8. diseases

You get the point. Nature is amoral, at best.

I'll stop here.


| |

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?