Beauty Pageant Contestans Should be Seen, not Heard
Remember Carrie Prejean? You know, the beauty pageant contestant from California who spoke out against gay marriage when giving her answer during the, umm…question and answer session during some pageant she was in? She was subsequently stripped of her title following the pageant; she claims that this was all in retaliation to her opposition to same-sex marriage. In the aftermath of losing her title, Prejean was simultaneously hailed as a hero who stood up for what she believed in by Conservatives and labeled intolerant by Liberals.
It’s not that people don’t have to right to think and say what they want, it’s just that I’m of the opinion that if you don’t have anything constructive to add to the conversation, keep your damn mouth shut. Case in point: Lauren Ashley. The Miss California contestant competing under the self-proclaimed title of “Miss Beverly Hills” raised the ire of everyone with a functioning brain with this gem of a take on the fate of homosexuals:
The Bible says that marriage is between a man and a woman. In Leviticus it says, ‘If man lies with mankind as he would lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death and their blood shall be upon them.’ The Bible is pretty black and white.
Interesting that you would bring up that particular bit of scripture, Ms. Ashley. Leviticus is the go-to passage for opponents of gay marriage, as they think that it somehow justifies their ass-backward prejudice. Ms. Ashley made the quote to Pop-Tarts, the celebrity/entertainment news wing of Fox News. Naturally, they didn’t see much wrong with the comment, and by in large have praised Ms. Ashley as being some kind of courageous hero being attacked by the Evil Left-Wing Media.
I feel like God himself created mankind and he loves everyone, and he has the best for everyone. If he says that having sex with someone of your same gender is going to bring death upon you, that’s a pretty stern warning, and he knows more than we do about life.
A warning? Interesting. Here’s my opinion: If you have a viewpoint as controversial as Ms. Ashley’s, which is your right as an American, then you better damn well prepare yourself for the backlash that you know is coming. Because it’s our right as supporters of equal rights to call you out for your statements. It’s also our right to question whether you’re a homophobic or not. It’s also our right to ask why you hate gay people. Don’t like being questioned about something you say? Tough sh*t. Either take the criticism that’s coming to you, or shut the hell up. Freedom of speech is not blanket protection from criticism.
Gay marriage is an intensely personal subject to me, and I’m not going to apologize for saying something that may have offended somebody. No, I’m not gay, but I have several gay friends and family members who I feel are being robbed of what should be their right to get married. This is an issue for which I not only strongly disagree with the opposing viewpoint, I don’t even recognize it as being valid. I have yet to hear a good argument from anybody as to why gay people shouldn’t be allowed to get married. Not one. The day that a gay marriage opponent can give me an argument without using the words “God,” “Bible,” “sin,” or “sanctity of marriage” is the day that I’ll actually accept that there’s an opposing viewpoint to my own on this issue. I’m not holding my breath.
This post broaches another topic that I’d like to discuss: Biblical literalism. I don’t really have time now, but this is something I’ll get to later.
Here is a post that does not use scripture, although the word religion does get mentioned. Don’t know if this qualifies.
http://www.ornery.org/essays/2004-05-24-1.html
Here is another without God, Bible, sin or sanctity
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF03H01&f=FP02K
First off, thanks for reading. I truly do appreciate it. Secondly, you’ve given me a lot of information to digest, and while I have a pretty good idea of what my responses to these arguments will be, I wouldn’t be doing anyone justice if I gave you my responses without thoroughly reviewing the arguments you’ve provided. Check back tomorrow for my response–possibly in the form of a post.
I had a really lengthy response prepared, but then I realized that I can pretty much debunk the Family Research Council’s arguments in a tidy paragraph or two. First, the vast majority of their arguments are centered on assumptions, bogus studies, fabrications, and the “expertise” of two or three “scientists.” In the examples below, I’ve taken Family Research Council (FRC) reasons to oppose gay marriage and put them in bold type. The questions provided come directly from their website, as well.
For instance, here’s an assumption used by FRC that’s just wrong:
In response to the question, “How would allowing same-sex couples to marry change society’s concept of marriage?”
For one thing, it would reinforce many of the negative changes described above. As an example, marriage will open wide the door to homosexual adoption, which will simply lead to more children suffering the negative consequences of growing up without both a mother and a father.
Wrong. First off, several states already permit single AND joint GLBT adoption. Secondly, there’s not a reputable scientific study in existence that proves that children raised by a gay person or two gay people automatically suffers “negative consequences of growing up without both a mother and a father.” That’s a bogus statement, anyway–there would always be a mother OR a father. If two gay people adopt a child, neither one is capable of playing the role of mother or father?
In response to the question, “Isn’t marriage whatever the law says it is?”
Marriage is not a creation of the law. Marriage is a fundamental human institution that predates the law and the Constitution. At its heart, it is an anthropological and sociological reality, not a legal one. Laws relating to marriage merely recognize and regulate an institution that already exists.
Wrong again. Marriage may be a fundamental institution, but in America, there are two distinct types of marriages: there’s a religious ceremony, which does NOTHING to change your legal status. Then there’s the civil marriage licensing process, which DOES change your legal status. Marriage is not a legal reality? Then why are there more than 1,000 benefits given to married couples that aren’t given to same-sex couples? Why do you file your taxes differently once your married? Why do you get a reduced insurance rate once you’re married? Why can you file a joint bankruptcy once you’re married? Why can a married person assume their dead spouse’s pension? Why? Because marriage is just as government-regulated as getting your driver’s license.
Another one of FRC’s responses to the question, “How would allowing same-sex couples to marry change society’s concept of marriage?”
The 1994 National Health and Social Life Survey, which remains the most comprehensive study of Americans’ sexual practices ever undertaken, found that 75 percent of married men and 90 percent of married women had been sexually faithful to their spouse. On the other hand, a major study of homosexual men in “committed” relationships found that only seven out of 156 had been sexually faithful, or 4.5 percent.
This study must be infallible, right? Not exactly. Notice how the heterosexuals mentioned are married. You can’t exactly poll married homosexuals, can you? I would imagine that you polled heterosexuals who were also in “committed” relationships and not married, you’d find the percentages of people sexually faithful to their spouses would drop significantly.
I have a lot more examples that I could provide, but I think I’ve made my point. The Family Research Council is a super-partisan organization with an Evangelical political agenda. Of course they’re going to cherry pick the studies and articles that support their viewpoint. This tactic is similar to the Conservative talk show host who finds two scientists opposed to global warming and then claims that all of science is opposed to it, ignoring the fact that there may be 50 scientists who say that global warming is real.
I also like to ask opponents of gay marriage this question: Why is acceptable to you that two straight people who hate each other have the right to get married, but two gay people who love each other don’t?
http://www.ornery.org/essays/2004-05-24-1.html
What is your reply to this one? I can understand why you would reply to the religious one.
This article is full of nothing more than the borderline-homophobic ramblings of a man, Farjam Majd, who has been taught his entire life that homosexuality is wrong.
He makes no valid, coherent arguments against gay marriage. In fact, the bulk of the article is arguing against homosexuality in general. He equates it to some kind of disease or condition, saying “The common-sense bottom line is that there is nothing right with the idea of homosexuality and its associated behaviors, not biologically, not socially, not evolutionarily, and not rationally.” That sentence right there, a broad, sweeping dismissal of homosexuality, pretty much sums up the problems with his arguments.
Basically, the article is one long, red herring argument against homosexuality, not gay marriage. He talks about everything except gay marriage: feminism, the black struggle for equality, diabetes.
He further cites numbers that could never be confirmed. For instance: “When you count the self-professed homosexuals who have other reasons and ulterior motives for their sexual deviance, the proportion may rise to about 1-2%. These other reasons include bitterness against anything traditional or established, desire for attention, making a political statement, and general behavior flexibility (including sexual behavior) in absence of inhibitions, among others. In any event, their numbers are far less than the advertised 10-12%.
Sexual deviance? Insinuating that some people “choose” to become gay out of bitterness to tradition or desire for attention? What kind of argument is that? A very bad one.
My suggestion? If you’re going to go around and link these articles to people who support gay marriage, you should probably just link to the Family Research Council and not to Mr. Majd…if you want to be taken seriously, that is.
I simply linked you to articles not mentioning God, sin, Bible or sanctity of marriage.
I think it would be a reasonable assumption to some ( we, who have been taught that our world is evolutionary in process) that the actions or conditions that do not promote the procreation and continuance of society would be deemed undesirable. Majd may simply be a product of that belief. If that is the case, then the school systems and society in general play a part in his beliefs. Helping old/sick/etc. people die and aborting fetuses are, at times,acceptable and lawful practices to help promote the health and welfare of individuals and society, so why is it surprising that there are those who would also want to include homosexuals or anyone else they deem inconvenient, in the mix?
People are greatly influenced by other’s beliefs.
Hitler appears to be influenced by Darwin’s evolutionary theory(and spilled over to eugenics), but just because he chose to use the theory for his own purposes does not make the theory wrong. It is the preferred theory in our school systems. Just because it lends itself to the same results as some biblically religious zealots has not resulted in the theory being abandoned.
Leaving God,Bible, sin and sanctity of marriage out of the “answer” still showed Majd in the same mindset as others who use those words.
How do two opposing theories result in people who think the same way? Those people must be inherently ignorant and vile people at heart, who choose to hate others and hide behind a theory to do it. In that case we are all at risk to be that person.
One of my readers, who happens to be a co-worker of mine, pointed out to me today that I may have misrepresented your viewpoint in my last reply. When I alluded to the last paragraph in your final comment, I classified it as “sarcasm,” and, essentially, lumped you in as agreeing with Mr. Madj’s arguments. If I was off-base in my assessment, I do apologize. I think I see your point now, that many different roads can be taken to reach the same conclusion. Again, thanks for reading, and thanks for keeping the debate civil.
Thank you for your apology. I try to write to make people think, not make them think like me.
Okay, so let me get this straight. People you like believe that homosexuality is “undesirable” because it doesn’t promote the continuance of society through procreation?
“…so why is it surprising that there are those who would also want to include homosexuals or anyone else they deem inconvenient in the mix?” Why? Because you can’t “fix” homosexuality. It’s not something that you can make go away. You can’t give people a pill for it, you can’t train them to not be homosexual, and, much to Mr. Majd’s chagrin, you can’t kill them off, either. That’s the problem with this argument–you’re treating homosexuality like it’s some kind of condition or genetic flaw that needs to be dealt with, when it isn’t. And I think you know that.
I really don’t understand how the eugenics, Darwin, and Hitler fit into this discussion. Unless, of course, you are talking about enacting some kind of plan to eliminate homosexuals in some kind of misguided attempt to “cleanse” the Earth and get rid of those who cannot reproduce for one reason or another. While you’re at it, are you going to get rid of single heterosexuals who choose not to have children? Are they on this hit list? What about sterile people? They’re not contributing to the next generation, so they have to go, too. What about people who are too old to have kids? Yep, I think under this logic, they have to go as well.
And while I think your last paragraph is sarcasm, you pretty much hit the nail on the head. People who oppose gay marriage can hide behind God, the Bible, bogus scientific studies, bogus social theories, and misguided “expertise” all they like, but at the end of the day, they all have one thing in common: a basic hatred and fear of homosexuality. It’s just human nature: people fear what they can’t understand and hate what they can’t control.