Argument from the opposition

[picklepuss]

Recently, thanks to the link from dancingrain, I used the ACLU's letter generator to send a fax to my 3 Congressmen (2 Senators; 1 R and 1D, and 1 Representative - R) asking them to oppose the proposed Constitutional amendment that would effectively outlaw same sex marriages

Comments

[dejaspirit]

Bigotry, no matter how well stated and politely expressed is still bigotry.

Well at least it's crisp bigotry

[picklepuss]

Yeah but isn't bigotry okay as long as God says it's okay.

Or is it if my God says it's OK. Yeah that's the one.

[avalons]

While he didn't spout too much Christian rhetoric he still talked about marriage in the context of a religious ceremony, which for some people it is. But since it's also a legal ceremony, which can done without clergy that,in my opinion, undermines the whole argument of "sacred tradition

[picklepuss]

Well obviously the real point for the government and the Pope is that passing this law would be saying the being homosexual is okay. And we can't have that. Cause you know all them there gays are sure ruining my life.

And how in the world did that Defense of Marriage Act get passed? We know have a legal definition of "spouse?"

When did we start making laws based solely on tradition? Isn't that fundamentally wrong?

I don't see what is so "sacred" about going to a J.P., except to the people who are getting married.
Did you read ivyblossom's post about this? She wanted to know why it's legal for 2 atheists to marry, based on the standard argument.

[avalons]

Cause you know all them there gays are sure ruining my life

I really think that in their deluded little minds they believe that as soon as a domestic partner law is passed you will abandon your heterosexuality with alacrity to live a "deviant lifestyle".

Because that's all that's holding you back from destroying the fabric of our society. Right?

*takes a moment to catch her breath after a fit of laughter*

The idea of making laws based on tradition is frightening beyond reason actually. Because then who decides which traditions need laws to back them up; or who's traditions? Female mutilation is someone's tradition. Pederasty was a tradition at some point.

I know those are extreme examples but it makes the point.

I haven't read that post yet, but that was in my mind while I was nattering above.

[picklepuss]

I can't believe you used alacrity in a sentence.

I really, really hate the phrase, "the fabric of society."

You're making excellent points all around today. I would even say you have your dander up.

[praetorianguard]

I think procreation as a justification for anything is outdated. And that's really what the legal justification here (and for anti-sodomy laws, etc.) is: sex is supposed to be for procreation; therefore, we should protect the sanctity of sex and marriage between heterosexual couples, because the only justification for either is procreation.

I think the country has moved past that, but apparently Congress doesn't.

Interestingly, Dear Prudence (on slate.com) just answered a question from a woman who believed that her husband's masterbation was the equivalent of his cheating on her. Since, obviously his little sperms are going somewhere other than they ought. *rolls eyes*

[picklepuss]

I was under the misconception the idea of sex meant solely for procreation died with the Puritans.

I think the country has moved past that, but apparently Congress doesn't.
Well far be it from Congressmen to adhere to the opinion of their constituents.

I do so dearly hope there was some sort of virtual bitch-slap involved in Prudence's answer. Will check.

[jiggery_pokery]

First off, I am impresed and hugely amused that you wrote your fax with the surname of Picklepuss. It got me thinking for half a minute that that might actually be your real surname.

The reply looks very much like a boiler-plate form letter to me. The Rep probably has a staff of bored political wannabes who have sent this letter out four times already.

It seems unlikely that a single fax will change his mind, but sufficiently many people sending their single faxes in might. Well done and thank you!

[picklepuss]

I really hate to burst your bubble, but I threw that in during editing. I took out all this guy's info, plus my name and address is actualy in that big gap between the date and Dear...

I just thought the Picklepuss would be a needed throwaway laugh for an otherwise pretty sober post.

I was however tempted to use the Picklepuss in the fax, but I decided it would be difficult enough to be taken seriously with my actual name. I hope you're not too disappointed.

I also assume it's a form letter akin to my form fax, hence the quick response. Still it does appear to have been signed by hand. In the end though I must agree with msscribe above. At least I'm trying to do my part, however small.

[malachan]

I also assume it's a form letter akin to my form fax, hence the quick response. Still it does appear to have been signed by hand.

Speaking as someone who has worked in a Congressional office myself, I am 99% sure that it is not only a form letter (he has probably received 100s of letters on this issue), but it wasn't signed by him. Congressmen have rubber stamps with their signatures on them, which certain of their staff are authorised to use - and the chief of staff is usually able to perfectly fake a Congressman's signature.

Your letter will result in one entry being added to a database - and the Congressman will be aware of how many people in total have written to him on both sides of this issue. But has he seen your letter? No chance.

Might sound a bit disillusioning - but Congressmen get 100s of letters every day, all they have time for is knowing *how many* people have written in support of each issue.

[picklepuss]

Well that's basically what I figured from the beginning. BY the looks of it as though someone signed it by hand.

I have no illusion that he actually saw my particular letter. In fact I would be very surprised if he's even in the area right now, let alone the office this was posted from.

And at this point I think it would be hard for most Americans to be disillusioned about their Congressmen. I know the awesome schedule of even your most junior congressman, of which this guy certainly is not.

A humorous aside - there's a little note at the bottom of the letter that reads "PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER"

[seekingclarity]

My need to stalk has been foiled again! Damn you for whiting out your address! *scoffs*

That being said...kudos on actually faxing your local representative! I've commented a few times in the past about doing that for various reasons...but then I never do because pracrastinating is my daddy.

I believe the tradiational instituation of marriage is the foundation of our society.

*giggles*

Maybe if he actually wrote something of substance with a shred of evidence for why he believes that, I'd be more inclined to agree. But he didn't...so basically it sounds like he's saying, "I believe this is right because this is the way it's always been. Now go away you silly, silly little man."

Weak. And lame.

I think he should go read The Power Elite and then talk about the foundation of society. Meh.