A sacred union between a man and a women. (HAH!)
I am in the process of synthesizing my sources for my long research paper on same-sex marriages. The paper has to be formally written, follow MLA citation format, etc. This rant, however, does not. While my research paper will lay out an argument that supports same-sex marriages, this rant expresses my current fury.
(This will be poorly organized, and poorly written. But I'm angry, so it doesn't matter.)
What the bloody fuck.
After going through my sources, I've noticed the following: The legalization of same-sex marriages in Massachusetts has not done anything to "undermine" the "institution of marriage" or "family life" in any way possible. In fact, in my opinion, it has strengthened both. The institution of marriage is strengthened because the gay people who got married in Massachusetts didn't just do it for the hell of it, like some people who go to Las Vegas, tie the knot, and get divorced the next week, day, month, etc. These people fought for years. Years. For marriage. They love each other, and they got married. It's absolutely wonderful. In reading some testimonials of same-sex couples who got married, they all sounded absolutely jovial. All of them said things like "it was the happiest day of my life."
"Next to the birth of our daughter, Annie, this is the happiest day of our lives," said Julie Goodridge, holding back tears.
http://www.boston.com/news/specials/gay_marriage/articles/2004/05/18/wedding_day/
How can someone POSSIBLY have a problem with this? It is beyond me how some people think that they have the RIGHT to regulate something like marriage to exclude people who love each other. Yes, they're both men, or they're both women. Yes, the Bible says that that's wrong. Yes, you think they're going to hell, and that it is an abomination, and that it is morally unacceptable. BUT THAT STILL DOES NOT GIVE ANYONE THE RIGHT TO DENY THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS TO GET MARRIED. Period. No fucking exceptions.
Laura Bush is the dirtiest of all hookers: http://www.boston.com/news/specials/gay_marriage/articles/2004/05/20/mrs_bush_welcomes_gay_issues_debate/
In a wide-ranging interview about her role in the reelection campaign and its issues, Mrs. Bush said that she had never met Senator John F. Kerry, but that she found it difficult to hear any opponent make political attacks against her husband. "It's a fact of life" in politics, Mrs. Bush said, but hurtful when attacks are against "someone you love."
NO FUCKING SHIT YOU STUPID HYPOCRITICAL BITCH!!!! Ok, it's difficult for her to hear Mr. Kerry making political attacks against her husband (kin to the devil). Well, how do GLBTQ people feel when they are made target by AN ENTIRE GROUP OF CONSERVATIVE ASSHOLES? You could say that it's difficult to hear, when politicians attack an entire group of people NOT for what they believe in but for WHO THEY ARE. And DO NOT tell me that they're not political attacks. True, some politicians are genuinely polite. And on the other hand, some politicians are genuinely politicians (they lie through their fucking teeth).
Read this:
"After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization.
Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity. On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard. Activist courts have left the people with one recourse.
If we're to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America." - George W. Bush, February, 2004
BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT
I guess my thing is that I don't care if someone thinks that marriage should be defined as a union between a man and a woman. I don't give a shit if a person wants to believe that all gay people go to hell and that we're all sinners and that we're all lost and confused and that we could all be straight if we just tried a teensy weensy bit harder. I don't care - they're stupid, they can be stupid if they so wish. HOWEVER, I have NO respect for the opinion that just because some people are uncomfortable with the idea of same-sex marriages, that they should be banned.
I would like to be able to know that in the future, if I love someone, I will be able to marry them.
Some might say, "well, couldn't you just live with them? It would be like you're married, except you just won't have a piece of paper saying so."
Fuck that. Come on, it's marriage. It's the principle of the thing. Marriage represents moving on to another stage in your life. It represents settling down. It represents commitment. Society EXPECTS that people who are married are committed to each other. By not allowing gay people to marry, the government is sending a message that they don't care if gay people settle down, create families, are committed to each other. Yet, they fully accept people who marry for money, or marry out of convenience, or marry for the fuck of it, so long as there is one penis and one vagina involved.
And then there's the argument about the children. "All children deserve a mother and a father," says Mitt Romney. (To me, that says, "All children deserve to subconsciously be taught predetermined gender roles.") If a child is cared for by loving parents, who cares what gender the parents are? Same-sex couples have been adopting children for years now. How could marriage weaken that? In my opinion, and in the opinion of Jonathan Rauch, whose book I'm reading, it could really only strengthen it. Think about it. A kid is raised by two men, or two women. Wouldn't their being married make the family more stable? Sure, they could be perfectly stable, living in the same home, whether they're married or not. But my point is that... how could marriage hurt this situation?
It just doesn't make sense to me. Some people are like, "I'm a Catholic, I'm not ready to accept gay marriage." That's like saying, "I'm a Catholic, I'm too immature to understand the fact that two men can love each other." It's ok if some people not ready to accept gay marriage. But it's NOT ok if some people who are not ready to accept gay marriage do not allow others to accept it. Because there are thousands of couples all over the United States right now that love each other just as much as any heterosexual married couple, but cannot be married because the legislators of their particular states are too stupid to realize that love and commitment are universal.
In conclusion, FUCK THIS SHIT.
Also, on the way home, I was listening to Ahmad Jamal's version of "Autumn Leaves" from the album, Olympia 2000. Let's just say that I couldn't help but say "Oh god!" and "Oh no!" Yeah, it was that good.
(This will be poorly organized, and poorly written. But I'm angry, so it doesn't matter.)
What the bloody fuck.
After going through my sources, I've noticed the following: The legalization of same-sex marriages in Massachusetts has not done anything to "undermine" the "institution of marriage" or "family life" in any way possible. In fact, in my opinion, it has strengthened both. The institution of marriage is strengthened because the gay people who got married in Massachusetts didn't just do it for the hell of it, like some people who go to Las Vegas, tie the knot, and get divorced the next week, day, month, etc. These people fought for years. Years. For marriage. They love each other, and they got married. It's absolutely wonderful. In reading some testimonials of same-sex couples who got married, they all sounded absolutely jovial. All of them said things like "it was the happiest day of my life."
"Next to the birth of our daughter, Annie, this is the happiest day of our lives," said Julie Goodridge, holding back tears.
http://www.boston.com/news/specials/gay_marriage/articles/2004/05/18/wedding_day/
How can someone POSSIBLY have a problem with this? It is beyond me how some people think that they have the RIGHT to regulate something like marriage to exclude people who love each other. Yes, they're both men, or they're both women. Yes, the Bible says that that's wrong. Yes, you think they're going to hell, and that it is an abomination, and that it is morally unacceptable. BUT THAT STILL DOES NOT GIVE ANYONE THE RIGHT TO DENY THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS TO GET MARRIED. Period. No fucking exceptions.
Laura Bush is the dirtiest of all hookers: http://www.boston.com/news/specials/gay_marriage/articles/2004/05/20/mrs_bush_welcomes_gay_issues_debate/
In a wide-ranging interview about her role in the reelection campaign and its issues, Mrs. Bush said that she had never met Senator John F. Kerry, but that she found it difficult to hear any opponent make political attacks against her husband. "It's a fact of life" in politics, Mrs. Bush said, but hurtful when attacks are against "someone you love."
NO FUCKING SHIT YOU STUPID HYPOCRITICAL BITCH!!!! Ok, it's difficult for her to hear Mr. Kerry making political attacks against her husband (kin to the devil). Well, how do GLBTQ people feel when they are made target by AN ENTIRE GROUP OF CONSERVATIVE ASSHOLES? You could say that it's difficult to hear, when politicians attack an entire group of people NOT for what they believe in but for WHO THEY ARE. And DO NOT tell me that they're not political attacks. True, some politicians are genuinely polite. And on the other hand, some politicians are genuinely politicians (they lie through their fucking teeth).
Read this:
"After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization.
Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity. On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard. Activist courts have left the people with one recourse.
If we're to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America." - George W. Bush, February, 2004
BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT
I guess my thing is that I don't care if someone thinks that marriage should be defined as a union between a man and a woman. I don't give a shit if a person wants to believe that all gay people go to hell and that we're all sinners and that we're all lost and confused and that we could all be straight if we just tried a teensy weensy bit harder. I don't care - they're stupid, they can be stupid if they so wish. HOWEVER, I have NO respect for the opinion that just because some people are uncomfortable with the idea of same-sex marriages, that they should be banned.
I would like to be able to know that in the future, if I love someone, I will be able to marry them.
Some might say, "well, couldn't you just live with them? It would be like you're married, except you just won't have a piece of paper saying so."
Fuck that. Come on, it's marriage. It's the principle of the thing. Marriage represents moving on to another stage in your life. It represents settling down. It represents commitment. Society EXPECTS that people who are married are committed to each other. By not allowing gay people to marry, the government is sending a message that they don't care if gay people settle down, create families, are committed to each other. Yet, they fully accept people who marry for money, or marry out of convenience, or marry for the fuck of it, so long as there is one penis and one vagina involved.
And then there's the argument about the children. "All children deserve a mother and a father," says Mitt Romney. (To me, that says, "All children deserve to subconsciously be taught predetermined gender roles.") If a child is cared for by loving parents, who cares what gender the parents are? Same-sex couples have been adopting children for years now. How could marriage weaken that? In my opinion, and in the opinion of Jonathan Rauch, whose book I'm reading, it could really only strengthen it. Think about it. A kid is raised by two men, or two women. Wouldn't their being married make the family more stable? Sure, they could be perfectly stable, living in the same home, whether they're married or not. But my point is that... how could marriage hurt this situation?
It just doesn't make sense to me. Some people are like, "I'm a Catholic, I'm not ready to accept gay marriage." That's like saying, "I'm a Catholic, I'm too immature to understand the fact that two men can love each other." It's ok if some people not ready to accept gay marriage. But it's NOT ok if some people who are not ready to accept gay marriage do not allow others to accept it. Because there are thousands of couples all over the United States right now that love each other just as much as any heterosexual married couple, but cannot be married because the legislators of their particular states are too stupid to realize that love and commitment are universal.
In conclusion, FUCK THIS SHIT.
Also, on the way home, I was listening to Ahmad Jamal's version of "Autumn Leaves" from the album, Olympia 2000. Let's just say that I couldn't help but say "Oh god!" and "Oh no!" Yeah, it was that good.