President suspect George Bush has recently decided that he's going to placate his socially conservative Christian base by once again attempting to ban gay marriage, or if you're a supporter of this bill, define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. This has been labeled by many commentators as nothing more than a token gesture as it is claimed that Bush knows it is doomed to fail I however think that it is most probable that Bush knows nothing about nothing about nothing. In any case the aurgument for this bill is that marriage is mankinds oldest established concept [or words to that affect] , and this may well be true [allthough i think that it isn't] but then slavery was and is also a very longly established action within society it in fact still goes on today, in some parts of the world, but its longetivity is no reason to big it up, it is no reason not to wipe it of the face of the planet. I am not equating marriage with slavery [allthough some who have gone through it may dissagree] but actually marriage does have some simmilaritys to slavery. Historically marriage represented the ownership of the women by the man, [proof of this is found in the fact that untill reletively recent the couple would be refered to as man and wife the implication being that allthough the husband remains a man the women is now simply a wife] and the ownership of the man and the woman by the state or local lord [proof of this is found in the fact that if one wanteed to get maried then it used to be that one would have to ask for the permission of the local lord who had the power to refuse you, this is not dissimilar to the modern practice of marriage registration i.e. any marriage that is not registered is not considered to be legal]. the Bushes and there supporters claim that this is not about bashing gays it is simply about protecting the institution of marriage but this is not met out in the second major reason that they have given to prove the neccesity of this bill and that is that marriage must be protected because it has all of these benifits, I won't bother listing them but suffice it to say that any benifit derived from a marriage is down to the two people involved with the marriage and not the institution of marriage itself, in any case if this bill had nothing to do with bashing gays then the bill supporters would not by implication be suggesting that these benifits should or indeed must be kept away from gay people.
Bush is an idiot if he thinks this will work, or maybe he's not an idiot cos he knows it won't, or maybe he's an idiot because he knows it will work. In an America were a womens [long fought for] right to control what happens in her own body, is being rappidly being eroded, nothing can be taken for granted.
3 comments:
you wrong in many many respects infact you are probably wrong in all respects
1]'George Bush he is the president'
george bush is not legally the president of any country, it has been proven that he cheated in his first ellection, the fact that the law has not caught up with him yet is irrelevent and unsurprising as he is in power.
2]'a Christian intitution'
marriage exists in many religions other than christianity many of which are older than christianity therfore it is not a christian institution.
3]'George Bush to defend'
He isn't really defending it, this is nothing more than a scam, he knows he can't get this through because its unconstitutional he's doing it to appease his fundamentalist christian base and get them out to vote in this ellection year just the same as he did last time and nothing came of that.
4]'a Christian country'
America is not in fact a christian country by definition it is not officially anything, it has no official religion, it has no official culture, and it doesn't even have an official language. Thats the point of america its for everyone, in the words of Dick Cheney 'freedom means freedom for all'
5]'a legal system based upon Christian moral principles and a Christian sense of Justice'
not true, for a start these priciples exist in other religions many of which are older than christianity, allso under christanity you are allowed to stone you're children to death if they are disobaying you and that seems very un american to say the least, secondly the people who founding fathers were not nesesarily christian atleast not entirely so, most were agnostic some may even have been atheists most if not all were freemasons and one was even a member of the notourious hellfire club, so it would be better to argue that there justice system was based on the values of freemasonry.
i will return to attaking you're statement later but for now i must go.
hi greg
you have said a number of things without providing any sort of evidence with which to back up you're statement such as 'Having two fathers will not be beneficial in the upbringing of any child!' all that is clear is that you are very angry about this.
you allso say 'Christianity teaches homosexual acts are disordered' now if christianity taught you to jump of a bridge would you do it? the fact of the matter is that you can believe what you ,like but if you don't go into the outside world to find the evidence then you might as well be an unthinking automaton death blind and dumb. however i respect you're right to beleive whatever you like but you then go onto say 'surely this much is obvious to the most naive of biology students!' as if christianity is in this instance atleast backed up by science which it is not. so in any case how do you mean disordered by that do you mean "not in its rightfull place" if so then you should know that under scientific teaching the idea of a man rising from the grave is very much disordered. if however by that you mean un-natural then once again under scientific teaching the idea of a man rising from the grave is very much un-natural allso it is now widely excepted that certain animals do engage in homosexual acts [dogs, penguins, and of course to binobo chimp] whats more i find this line of argument very confusing as you have allready in a previous comment said something along the lines of 'the doctrine of original sin teaches us why we have a natural predeliction for evil' now it almost seems as if you are arguing at one moment that nature is essentially evil and that we must rise above it and then at another moment that an act is immoral because it is un-natural, do you see the cotridiction here?
'Nature (and I firmly believe, God) has designed the family unit in such a way that the parents show their love of children in different ways. The father is the rock in the family, being the example to his children of how to live a strong and healthy life, how to work, how to protect one's loved ones in a fatherly manner. The role of a mother is very different - it is a nurtering one, a caring one, a 'cuddling' one.'
you are subscribing to a number of socialy constucted steriotypes they are not natural ones, if one looks at other creatures that are similar to humans such as chimps then one finds that fathers have very little to do with the family
they for the most part very simply protect their posision in the clan and by exstension the clan itself it is the mothers who not only protect and nurture but also provide the offspring with a 'rock' as you say, this is perhaps the more natural way but it is possibly not the best way, that fact of the matter is anyone of either gender can be nuturing or strong and 'rock' like, as for homosexuals not being able to produce children surely this is a good thing, after all there many many children who have no parents atall and are in the adoption system, whats more when you say that they are not able to produce childre what then of the heterosexual couples who are allso not able to produce children.
Post a Comment