Ranting a little
But just a little I promise. You can blame our dear Mr. Sullivan for these:
1. And you wonder why I hate the South:
"There are three things I know about John Kerry. First, that he speaks three or four languages, and one of them is French. Second, that he's married to an ex-senator's wife who's worth a billion dollars. And third, he is supposedly a Vietnam vet." - Randal Vinson, Tennessee resident, as quoted in Slate.
Okay, so here we are knocking Kerry because he's educated and questioning the documented fact of his military service. In defense (I'm presuming)of a president who can barely speak his native language and skipped out on his own cheese-ass national guard duty.
Cram it, Randal Vinson. Cram it sideways. I'm not terribly happy about Kerry myself--he's miles away from being my dream candidate--but seriously, if this is what you have to say? Don't talk. That the guy speaks "three or four" languages is not evidence of his latent communism, you slack-jawed jackass, it's a pretty impressive show of the intellect he's got working. What's your beef with Al Gore, then, that he can count?
And the "supposed" service in Vietnam. Yeah. We've got pictures, medals, records, testimony from his fellow soldiers. What's your guy got? A couple of paychecks and no one who took up Gary Trudeau's $1000 bounty on flyboys who remember serving with him?
2. It's a civil contract between consenting adults:
Here's the thing that makes me nuts about the gay marriage debate: why the hell do we care? Two guys, two women want to fill out a document uniting their households, big damn deal. A man and a woman can march into the city clerk's office and do the same thing without ever involving their priest, pastor, imam, rabbi, shaman, cleric, sith master, really anybody but the IRS. The debate isn't, really, over whether or not the priest, pastor, imam, rabbi, shaman, whatever, has to recognize, accept, condone, tolerate, bless, or even stop condemning such unions. Don't give me any crap about how allowing a civil contract between two consenting adults of the same gender will "destroy" the sacrament of marriage. Bullpuckey. It's not going anywhere near the sacrament of marriage: it's not a sacramental marriage. The sacrament is completely untouched! Much the way that the sacrament of communion is untouched by someone drinking wine with breakfast Sunday morning!
What's more, I'm not the only one who thinks this way! Check out this dude's similar logic on a slightly different (but, I think, very fundamentally related) topic:
"Before leaving the question of divorce, I should like to distinguish two things which are very often confused. The Christian conception of marriage is one: the other is the quite different question - how far Christians, if they are voters or Members of Parliament, ought to try to force their views of marriage on the rest of the community by embodying them in the divorce laws. . . There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members." (emphasis mine)
That? Was C. S. Lewis, in "Mere Christianity." He's the sort of guy I like to refer to as "big guns."
So, in conclusion, Randal Vinson and his moronic ilk can hie themselves back to either kindergarten or the hill country; people opposed to gay marriage can pack it up for Riyadh or go found New Tehran somewhere the hell else. The end.
Man, am I in a mood today, or what? Look out . . .
2 comments:
i find it amusing that this is even a debate. marriage was a *religous* institution in pretty much all its forms until government started getting in the way. with this being the case, why is government even involved in marriage at all? it shouldn't be. as for the IRS, dear God, what a travesty that it even exist, but it does and so must be dealt with. the current 'civil marriage' that requires Big Brother to approve a couple and issue a license really shouldn't give a damn as to what is between the legs of the couple since it does this primarily for record keeping and financial matters. this should have been gender neutral from the start, rather like it is in business (partnerships anyone?) since the purpose is the same for all practical situations involving legal affairs. this is as far as the IRS or any other government agency should care to look. honestly i don't think government should have used the word 'marraige' to begin with since 'marriage' is a religous origin with meanings and implications far varying from religion to religion and to use the term 'marriage' attach to a civil union is to select a set of standards from one of these religions (since contradictory standards can't be simaltaneously adopted) and therefore select a religion as the 'approved' religion for defining what marriage is.
i must agree with your discontent regarding Randal Vinson's comments, though i question its aim: this is a quote from one person in tennessee and i can find its mirror in the north as well, why hate the shouth for one example? on the contrary, give the area the benefit of the doubt and despise the person who needs his head straightened out. hatred won't help and greatly hinders most things, education included. i can't say i support John Kerry, though i can give rational explaination for my distaste at the thought of President Kerry. i am willing to share these reasons to any interested. at present i am short on time, though i will check back later to see if any interest is expressed.
Post a Comment