Look, I'm pretty socially liberal, and therefore, I have no problem with the right to choose, gay people, voluntary euthanasia, etc. I'm all about freedom and maximizing individual liberty. However, a lot of control freaks out there wanna deny that liberty simply because they think those things are "immoral." That is just laughable, to say the least.
The simple fact of the matter is this: you can't legislate morality! Yes, I know, a lot of idiot conservatives like to say "But our laws against rape and murder and theft are based on our morals." Yes, to some extent they are, but they are ALSO in place to protect our rights as individuals, to protect us from aggression. If they didn't, there'd be no reason for these laws to exist! There's no reason for putting in place a law that criminalizes something that only a portion of the country or people think is wrong! It's just not rational, and it's probably unconstitutional.
Having said that, I am so goddamn sick of these culture wars. We've been bitching and complaining about this for 4 decades now! Are we any closer to a resolution? Not really. So how about both sides just declare some kind of truce? Or how about the authoritarian side that wants to shove its beliefs down everyone's throat and make someone's freedom illegal because it's 'immoral' just STFU? Deal with it! Times change, and society changes. If you can't accept that, then fuck off. You have no right to try to control people just because you think some individual's actions, which are not harming anyone, will "lead to societal degradation" or whatever you wanna call it.
A big part of it is the fact that we've allowed federalism to die in this country. Slowly but surely, states are being allowed less and less leeway over what they can and can't do within their own borders. The feds have taken so much discretion away from them! To some extent, that is a good thing because the 14th Amendment protects our right NOT to have the states infringe on our rights. However, federalizing all these issues ensures that it ALWAYS is dealt with at a federal level, rather than various jurisdictions with differing views deciding for themselves how best to deal with them. States' rights does have some role to play in this, believe it or not.
Besides, as Morris Fiorina and others have already exposed, Americans aren't really all that polarized. It's just the political climate that makes it so. Blue states' and red states' residents essentially have the same views on a host of issues. It's just that blue states are a bit more liberal, and red ones are a bit more conservative. Americans are not all that different on social issues overall. Most Americans favor spending on a strong national defense, healthcare, education, and many other programs. They're not big on welfare, though. And compared to 50 years ago, race and gay-straight relations are a hell of a lot better, current problems notwithstanding. As the American National Election Survey also shows, Americans aren't really that divided. "Kerry Country" and "Bush Country" aren't all that different. Yes, there are big liberal towns and small conservative towns, but the vast majority of the country is moderate, more or less. The 2-party system and intense election cycles has just made it seem like we're increasingly divided.
So what is the culture war really about? Are we all just being brainwashed by the media and political leaders to believe that it's all really such a big deal? So what if some gays get married or old folks who are dying want the plug pulled.
Showing posts with label gay rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gay rights. Show all posts
Monday, August 23, 2010
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Homosexuality Is Historical
You ever hear an anti-gay activist say something along the lines of, "The first recorded case of homosexuality was 1869 with Karl-Heinrich Ulrichs"? Well, don't believe it for a second. Yes, it is true that he was gay, and he was "molested" (although he probably just had a thing for) his equestrian trainer when he was 14 (the other guy was in his 30s), but that is hardly a reason for making him gay. Why do conservatives always assume if some younger guy/gal has sex with an older man/woman that it's automatically "rape"? It's such nonsense. What, it's not possible for consent to happen between these 2? Is age really such a big deal?
Anyway, as I was saying, homosexuality has been prevalent throughout much of history. Just about every culture has had it. It's very rare that you see a culture without at least one gay. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can deny that gays are in Iran all he wants, but he's fooling no one.
Here's just one timeline: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_LGBT_history
As you can see, Egypt had the first recorded gay couple thousands of years ago, believe it or not (Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum). In fact, if you go even further back to 12,000 BC (14,000 years ago), you'll find plenty of gay cave paintings and sculptures emphasizing homoeroticism. Sappho of Lesbos may is rumored to have been a lesbian. As perhaps was Plato (or was it Socrates?), Alexander the Great (or bisexual), Marquis de Sade (who probably was bi), and plenty of other historical figures! Hell, even Julius Caesar allegedly had a gay experience. And plenty of Roman emperors in the latter centuries of Rome's existence, including Hadrian and Trajan, were openly gay or were in gay relationships.
Why archconservatives continue to act like "gay" is something new is beyond me. Why can't they just accept it and move on? I swear, modern-day cultures and civilizations are so sexually repressed. We give up tolerance for things such as pedophilia and female genital mutilation, but we exchange it with becoming prudish assholes on sexual practices we do legally allow.
Homosexuality has never been the sole demise of any culture, and I have yet to see any evidence that being gay was even one of the main factors at all! There are plenty of reasons why Greece, the Roman Empire, the British Empire, and several other world powers fell. To think that "promotion of homosexuality" is somehow a reason is just ludicrous. Is homosexuality supposed to be some kind of virus that spreads like an epidemic and infects all facets of society?
Anyway, as I was saying, homosexuality has been prevalent throughout much of history. Just about every culture has had it. It's very rare that you see a culture without at least one gay. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can deny that gays are in Iran all he wants, but he's fooling no one.
Here's just one timeline: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_LGBT_history
As you can see, Egypt had the first recorded gay couple thousands of years ago, believe it or not (Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum). In fact, if you go even further back to 12,000 BC (14,000 years ago), you'll find plenty of gay cave paintings and sculptures emphasizing homoeroticism. Sappho of Lesbos may is rumored to have been a lesbian. As perhaps was Plato (or was it Socrates?), Alexander the Great (or bisexual), Marquis de Sade (who probably was bi), and plenty of other historical figures! Hell, even Julius Caesar allegedly had a gay experience. And plenty of Roman emperors in the latter centuries of Rome's existence, including Hadrian and Trajan, were openly gay or were in gay relationships.
Why archconservatives continue to act like "gay" is something new is beyond me. Why can't they just accept it and move on? I swear, modern-day cultures and civilizations are so sexually repressed. We give up tolerance for things such as pedophilia and female genital mutilation, but we exchange it with becoming prudish assholes on sexual practices we do legally allow.
Homosexuality has never been the sole demise of any culture, and I have yet to see any evidence that being gay was even one of the main factors at all! There are plenty of reasons why Greece, the Roman Empire, the British Empire, and several other world powers fell. To think that "promotion of homosexuality" is somehow a reason is just ludicrous. Is homosexuality supposed to be some kind of virus that spreads like an epidemic and infects all facets of society?
Redefining Marriage (History)
I always get a good rise whenever I hear some archconservative say that gay marriage "redefines" marriage. Oh, really? Well, what exactly is marriage? Just one man and one woman who love each other? Because that is not the way it has happened throughout history. In fact, marriage, for most cultures outside of the West, is not simply a contract between 2 heterosexuals in love.
In Kenya, for instance, there actually is a form of gay marriage (although it's not purely gay). In this ceremony, an infertile woman from the Nandi tribe can "marry" a younger, more fertile woman, and that younger woman will have sex with the man to have children (or produce boys, if I remember correctly). However, the 2 women who "marry" aren't actually in love, and it's more of a contractual arrangement for convenience. The younger woman, after she gives birth to at least one boy, is allowed to have sex with the man, and the older woman can no longer. She's more like a servant or caretaker now.
In many different cultures, like the Imbonggu in New Guinea, marriage is hardly for love. When children reach the ages of 7-10, they are initiated by the elders and trained to be warriors. At the end, they are selected wives. These wives, as all women, are considered inferior to the man in Imbonggu culture, and thus, she is limited in the marriage. The main purpose for the man is to have sex and have kids, as well as the woman serving as partially his "servant." There's not a lot of affection shown between the 2 spouses. And Imbonggu is one of many polygamous cultures, as men are allowed and even encouraged to have more than one wife.
Polygamy is still widely practiced in the developing and underdeveloped world. Men can have as many wives as possible, or they can have multiple, but there's a limit (such as Arab states that allow up to 4). Western romance and marriage rituals are not the norm worldwide. They are relatively new throughout human history.
In many cultures, marriage is more of an arrangement to unify and align different tribes. A member of one tribe marries another, and they form a bond of protection and kinship. They are allies.
In places like India, marriages are arranged, not necessarily for alliances, though. Many husbands and wives do learn to love each other later on, but oftentimes they do not at the beginning.
I could go on and on, but you get the picture. Western marriage rituals and traditions have hardly been normal. They are pretty new in the whole of human history. So, all this crap about "redefining marriage" is just nonsense! Marriage has been defined and redefined dozens of times throughout history. Not every civilization has the same definition. There is no "5,000 years of recorded history" of Western marriage. It's just not there. Where these cretins get this idea is beyond me.
Maybe if they'd take an anthropology class or something, they'd finally understand.
In Kenya, for instance, there actually is a form of gay marriage (although it's not purely gay). In this ceremony, an infertile woman from the Nandi tribe can "marry" a younger, more fertile woman, and that younger woman will have sex with the man to have children (or produce boys, if I remember correctly). However, the 2 women who "marry" aren't actually in love, and it's more of a contractual arrangement for convenience. The younger woman, after she gives birth to at least one boy, is allowed to have sex with the man, and the older woman can no longer. She's more like a servant or caretaker now.
In many different cultures, like the Imbonggu in New Guinea, marriage is hardly for love. When children reach the ages of 7-10, they are initiated by the elders and trained to be warriors. At the end, they are selected wives. These wives, as all women, are considered inferior to the man in Imbonggu culture, and thus, she is limited in the marriage. The main purpose for the man is to have sex and have kids, as well as the woman serving as partially his "servant." There's not a lot of affection shown between the 2 spouses. And Imbonggu is one of many polygamous cultures, as men are allowed and even encouraged to have more than one wife.
Polygamy is still widely practiced in the developing and underdeveloped world. Men can have as many wives as possible, or they can have multiple, but there's a limit (such as Arab states that allow up to 4). Western romance and marriage rituals are not the norm worldwide. They are relatively new throughout human history.
In many cultures, marriage is more of an arrangement to unify and align different tribes. A member of one tribe marries another, and they form a bond of protection and kinship. They are allies.
In places like India, marriages are arranged, not necessarily for alliances, though. Many husbands and wives do learn to love each other later on, but oftentimes they do not at the beginning.
I could go on and on, but you get the picture. Western marriage rituals and traditions have hardly been normal. They are pretty new in the whole of human history. So, all this crap about "redefining marriage" is just nonsense! Marriage has been defined and redefined dozens of times throughout history. Not every civilization has the same definition. There is no "5,000 years of recorded history" of Western marriage. It's just not there. Where these cretins get this idea is beyond me.
Maybe if they'd take an anthropology class or something, they'd finally understand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
