The Meaning of Marriage

The reason why I don't use "homosexuality" and "same-sex marriages" interchangeably, or why I don't include both in the same post, is because the two are only casually correlated.

If homosexuals can enter into opposite-sex marriages, which they do and which "traditional marriage" supporters would like homosexuals to do, why can't heterosexuals enter into same-sex marriages?

From my understanding, there is no good reason that heterosexuals can't enter into same-sex marriages. From my understanding, people fall in love with people's personalities, not just their bodies.

If we repeal DOMAs and other same-sex marriage bans, we send the message that love is born from commitment, security, and mental bonds. If we keep DOMAs and enforce same-sex marriage bans, we send the message that love is superficial and born solely towards animal characteristics (breeding) and gender roles.

Do you want to teach your children to fall in love with the one person who will give them commitment, security, mental bonds, and make them happy? Or do you want to teach your children to fall in love with someone for superficial reasons and so they can have as many babies as their coituses can handle?

(Note: I'm not saying that parents should teach their children to seek out members of the same sex, just as I didn't say that parents should teach their children to seek out members of the opposite sex. I'm saying that parents should think about what messages society is sending.)

Bailout?

Attended a guest speaking at CSU Dominguez Hills on Monday.

Speaker (whose name I cannot remember) talked about international policy with the US, and before, I was convinced that nobody, not even the banks, needed bailing out. Of course, I didn't realize just how much was tied to the banking system at the time.

Banks are the jumping-point for all kinds of financial transactions including investments, loans, pensions, etc. The simple question is this: If banks go under, who will take care of the investments, loans, pensions, etc.?

Answer: No one.

Q: If nobody takes care of these investments, loans, pensions, etc., what kind of message will that send to the American people (or foreign investors)?

A: That you can't count on banks to house your money. Or that you can't count on government to help you out in your hour of need. Or that you shouldn't invest. Or that, despite the fact that you work hard to support your family, your money can be wiped clean at any time because of somebody else's stupid mistake.

Illinois Family Institute Dangerously Misguiding

The Illinois Family Institute apparently is filled with ignorant people. Consider a passage from one of their articles:

The DOS requires that teachers either create activities around or exempt silent students from any activity that involves speaking.

[...]

Higgins further emphasizes that "The worthy end of eliminating harassment does not justify the means of exploiting instructional time." The First Amendment already allows DOS participants to wear t-shirts or put up posters, but according to a document co-written by the ACLU and Lambda Legal, a "school can regulate what students say. . . and it can also insist that students respond to questions, make presentations, etc." Students and teachers should not be allowed to exploit instructional time to advance their socio-political goals.

The irony is that they have already acknowledged that students can be required to answer questions during school time, and yet they still argue that teachers are "required" to "create activities around or exempt silent students" from classroom activities!

Clearly, a treatise in gross ignorance.

Not Interchangable Like Trains

The following passage comes from: Same-Sex Marriage: The Moral and Legal Debate. Eds. Robert M. Baird & Stuart E. Rosenbaum. Prometheus: Amherst, 2004.

Glenn T. Stanton makes various hilariously ridiculous arguments that shows he has no concept of Due Process, judicial hearings, basic logic, or common sense. I wish I could take the time to include the entire passage here, but I'll settle for one passage that really highlights his ignorance.

In fact, Sosman concludes, the court “is persuaded that there are no differences between same-sex and opposite-sex couples” (emphasis added). But can any husband, wife, or child admit that his or her spouse or parent could be replaced by someone of any sex? Is emotional attachment all there is to these relationships? (p. 73)

I think the question is misleading, because it asks an even more fundamental question: "Can any husband, wife, or child admit that his or her spouse or parent could be replaced by someone?"

Indeed, they cannot! And how does a same-sex couple feel about their spouses or children? Perhaps the same? Or perhaps the children feel the same way about their parents?

In his quest to argue against same-sex marriages, Stanton finds himself accidentally arguing for them.