You Only Have Rights If You've Suffered...

Did you know it's okay to discriminate as long as those discriminated against haven't suffered enough? Seriously, this is the position the "Family Research Council" is taking in regards to the "civil unions" and same-sex marriage debate that is sweeping the country. From an email they think they are sending to a right-wing moron"

---

Homosexuals have experienced disapproval, but they have not endured centuries of violence, abuse, segregation, and slavery.

---

One wonders if they want us to apologize for having closets to hide in...

Yes, it's a bunch of crap, but let's face it: Reasoning has never been a strong suit of conservative Christians, has it? But then they take it one step further: They claim that since coming out of the closet is a choice (as if lying were suddenly a viable alternative to homosexuality itself...) and having black skin is not a choice, it's also an argument toward allowing unequal rights to exist:

---

Unlike ethnicity, homosexual behavior is a choice. A person can choose to either participate in homosexual behavior or not to participate. An African-American cannot choose to participate in having black skin; they are born with it.

---

And thus, the myth of "choosing" continues (although not one straight person has yet to tell me when they chose to be straight). The ultimate irony comes in the form of their religion: It is also a choice to be Christian, Muslim, Hindu... But because they have chosen "correctly" (in the only twisted reality they have created...), everyone must suddenly live by their standards of "right" and "wrong."

They try to clarify said position next:

---

Lynch's suggestion that homosexuals who want to marry are oppressed or victims of discrimination is simply outrageous. No person is being denied the right to marry. They are simply asked to meet the core requirement (since civilization began) that both genders be present.

---

Notice something interesting here: Never mind that one of those genders (HINT: Women...) were discriminated against in marriage. Let's conveniently forget that the "institution" of marriage changes with every generation in our free society in how it's viewed, used, and practiced. Women had no say in who they would marry, how old they would be when they were sold to the highest bidder, how many rugrats they would have to produce for their owner--and, based on the argument presented here, that marriage shouldn't change with society, women should have no say in their husbands, family planning, ownership of property... But, of course, that wouldn't bother a patriarch-centric religious belief, would it? How silly!

But, knowing the shoddy footing they stand on with their "arguments," they try one last rally cry: Same-sex marriage statistics. They cite that, since same-sex marriage was made legal in Massachusetts, numbers of same-sex couples tying the know have slowed down--i.e., not as many are marrying as when it first became legal. Now, I know I have to spell this out for some of our "slower" readers, so here we go: The reasons why this is not only a silly argument, but a stupid argument.

1. 1. When something is new, more people rush out to get it. Of course the numbers are declining! The people who were together for years and wanted it badly all rushed to the courts at the same time to GET married! Now the people who are just starting to get serious in their commitments are turning to it.
2. 2. Most states won't recognize the marriage. Add in the fact that most out-of-state couples can't get married as their home state won't recognize said marriage, you have reason #2 for why marriage between same-sex couples is declining--most couples can't get married.
3. 3. Just because not many use it doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. If we followed this rule, there wouldn't be a law for people in wheelchairs. The number of walking people far outweigh the number of people in wheelchairs, so why should we make society change for them? See how stupid that logic is? Look at the Loving V. Virginia case: African Americans only make up about 12% of the U.S. population, but now they can freely marry anyone of any color they wish. Should we now deny them that since they are such a "small percentage" of the population? I don't think so either...
4. 4. The statistics they cite are also only half-baked:

   ---

   Only three years after same-sex "marriage" became legal in the Bay State, the number of same-sex "marriages" has dramatically declined. The state Department of Public Health notes that 6,121 same-sex couples married in the seven months following the court ruling. In 2006, 1,427 couples married. As of April 26 of this year, only 87 homosexual couples have wed.

   ---

Not only is this year not over, add up those numbers: That's 7,635 couples who now have all the same rights and protections as straight couples in Massachusetts. 15,270 sons, daughters, siblings, friends, mothers, and fathers now don't have to worry about their loved ones when they pass on; when they become disabled; when they come down with a sickness. 15,270 American citizens now can care for their loved ones on a state-wide level in one (1) state. And we want to prevent those people from living free lived based on some other people who choose to obey the (ambivalent) teachings of a book written over 2,000 years ago? Really?

The clincher of the email is even weaker:

---

This makes it clear that homosexuals don't want to marry; they want the official governmental and social affirmation of homosexual relationships that comes with being able to marry.

---

See that? 15,270 people didn't want to get married. Perish the thought! Of course, if the only reason these people wanted to get married was "official social and government sanction," why are the "number" of marriages declining? (Aside, of course, from the logical reasons I presented...) I mean, it's not about making a commitment to the one you love, right? Who came up with that silly idea?

Let me make myself very very clear here: I could give two flying fucks what "society" thinks about myself and my husband. I DO give a flying fuck that I DON'T have the same access as other people in love to continue to make sure my loved ones are cared for in the event of something horrible happening to myself. Do I pay taxes? Didn't I serve my country? Do I not work for a living for the things Rich and I have? But my social security benefits won't go to Rich because he has a fucking penis?! Society can drive off a cliff in the name of family values (which we all know are bunk...) for all I care. As long as I know that Rich can keep the house, pay the bills, and continue to live a happy, FREE life when I'm gone, and not have to worry about someone coming in and saying our love wasn't as "important" or "clean" as the love held between two people who have differing types of natural plumbing... THAT'S what I give a fuck about. Not what others think, but that the ones I love will be provided for.

And, seriously, this is a threat to society?

I'm wondering why they don't make like the Amish and just remove themselves from the society which they claim is so "wrong" and "morally corrupt." I mean, who the hell is stopping them? I don't mind if they stay, don't get me wrong: as long as they learn that

1. Not everyone lives in the past
2. Not everyone speaks to imaginary deities
3. Not everyone shares their throw-back value system of the stone age (which they think never existed...)
4. Not everyone must live by their "moral code" (which, in doing so, is a very immoral position...)

There now, fundies--is that so hard to do? I don't try to tell you whom you should marry; how you should worship (or not worship); who you should sleep with; if you can or can't serve in the military; if you can or can't care for the ones you love whether well or ill...

Why can't you, dear fundie, live and let live? Why is that so hard?