?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

More heretical musings

One of the big reasons I get told as to why folks support(ed) CA Prop 8, is that "...Marriage is a sacred religious institution" and their religion says that it should only be between a man and a woman.

Okay, I can almost see that.

Except... then why are atheists allowed to marry? That seems highly inconsistent. Un-ordained Justices-of-the-Peace or ship's captains shouldn't be allowed to preside over marriages if they are supposed to be Sacred and Holy. And what about folks from other religions that are fine with gays marrying? Is it okay, only for them?

My dad was an atheist. Does this mean that my parents should not have been allowed to marry? That I should have been born a bastard? Though that's pretty frowned on too... I suppose the strictly logical conclusion here, based on the given premise, is that in the ideal world of sacred marriage, I would just not have been born.

...

Perhaps unsurprisingly, I cannot really find it in myself to support this position.

But really, lets be honest here... which of the following cheapens the institution of marriage more?
  • Two women who love each other and want to marry?
  • Two atheists getting an elvis impersonator to marry them?
  • The fact that around 41% of all first marriages, 60% of second marriages, and 73% of third marriages end in divorce?

Why is it that divorce is legal, and atheists marrying is fine, yet somehow gays marrying is such a horror that the state constitution has to be changed to forbid it? As a friend of mine put it, "King Henry VIII did way more damage to the institution of marriage than Gays have."

Consistency, people! Be consistent!


I would have posted this before the election, except that I'm mostly preaching to the choir here. The few exceptions are folks whose vote I could not have swayed anyways. But I've had this rant running in the back of my head for a week now, and it wanted out.

Tags:

Comments

( 4 comments — Leave a comment )
credendovides
Nov. 5th, 2008 10:18 am (UTC)
I'm feeling sick at the thought that it might pass.
revar
Nov. 5th, 2008 10:31 am (UTC)
Don't be. That'd just provide the opportunity to take it to the federal supreme court.
octantis
Nov. 5th, 2008 10:37 am (UTC)
Very logically put. I never thought of it in these terms before. Makes a lot of sense.
foxmajik
Dec. 26th, 2008 02:18 pm (UTC)
Trebuchet Sourceforge
Hi, I was just wondering if you could either update or close the Trebuchet sourceforge project.

People have been filing bugs but there hasn't been a package update or an acknowledgment of any of the bugs since 2005.

It would be nice if you could let these people know you're no longer working on the project so that they won't be waiting for you to work on the bugs they're submitting.

Also, Trebuchet is still very popular. Could you do a code refresh and possibly put some of the fixes from the last CVS version into the packages available? In particular, making the "only matched words" fix for the gag function would be good.

Thanks in advance.
( 4 comments — Leave a comment )