Austin Improv

From my old blog, which I never read any more.

http://www.blogpod.com/Users/chicocarlu ... 73162.html

I liked it. You might think it's crazy. But then again, I'm the guy who was watching Titanic, saying, "well, if they know they're gonna drown, why not back the ship back up to the iceberg?"

-eric

In my very limited understanding of the history of marriage, it was originally a property issue. The dominant partner (who was the woman in some matriarchies) got not only a spouse but also a share of his/her new family's wealth. Or vice versa. I'm pretty sure that the institution of marriage predates the widespread acceptance of choosing your life partner out of love rather than other, more practical considerations.

Marriage has only recently been about choice, and just like people don't make all that many decisions about politics out of rational logical thought, nor do we always choose to marry or love based on rational logic. Which makes arranged marriage an interesting idea. Its about securing power bases, I suppose.
I think the neo christo facists just don't like the idea of butt sex or rug love. They should expand their horizons.

There are so many parallells between the gay issue of today and the civil rights issues circa 1960s America. Sleep well knowing that as gay people become more accepted, then anti-gay politicians will look like appalling asses in due time.

Then again, Strom Thurmond ran for president on a Segregationist platform around 1950 but remained in congress for over 50 more years. But he's the exception to the rule.

Feel free to add a joke here about how he fathered a black child with his housekeeper or something like that and so all these anti-gay politicians are gay themselves.

Justin makes a reallly good point: The reason they're so fanatical about it is that for the first time, they're in danger of losing. Nobody got exercised about gay marriage in the '50s because there was absolutely no possibilty of it happening.

we're preaching to the choir here.

anyways, check out this video
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 7367687976

That video was awesome Nadine, thank you!

fundamentalists of any stripe would rather appear to be right (eg: legislation gives their moral beliefs validation) than actually BE good (treat other people with respect and let them live their lives, regardless of beliefs, so long as they're not hurting anyone). their faith is so weak that any tangible reality that challenges that faith must be eradicated so they're not forced to actually question WHY they believe certain things. of course gay marriage doesn't have any effect on them...but it means that gays can marry, and if they can marry in a church (as some denominations are willing to do) then that lends it an air of sanctity and if God has sanctified a union between homosexuals then homosexuality itself cannot be an abomination in which case the Bible is not infallible and inerrant...and then they'd all have aneurysms and die trying to wrap their head around the concept. Which Pat Robertson would then try to claim was the Rapture.

conservativism in America today basically boils down to this: "we don't want the government telling US what to do, but we do want the government to tell everyone else what we think they should do." wow. fundamentalism breeds hypocrisy. I mean, really, who'd have thunk it?

but yeah, in 20 years, we'll all look back on this and laugh about the idiots and bigots who held this back. and we'll have to explain to our kids and grandkids what it was like to champion gay rights back in ought six.

the_reverend wrote:fundamentalists of any stripe would rather appear to be right (eg: legislation gives their moral beliefs validation) than actually BE good (treat other people with respect and let them live their lives, regardless of beliefs, so long as they're not hurting anyone). :D

well, maybe. except that they think it IS hurting someone.

look at it from a different angle: "what do you care about the war/sex slavery/female genital mutilation? it's not hurting you!"

i'm not equating all these things, but if you have a moral system that says that something is wrong and you feel morally obligated to right wrongs, then the argument that you should stay out of it because it's not hurting you directly is pretty thin.

I actually belong to a church that marries gay people. Which sort of makes it a freedom of religion issue. After all, why do the baptists get to marry who ever they want but the Quakers can't? Also, a weird thing, my son's god mother is a lesbian episcopal priest so she can marry other people together (is that how you say it?) but she can't marry her partner. Kind of weird, huh?

My personal feeling is that a church should have every right to make its own rules, including refusing to allow marriages based on sexuality or other reasons. The state, however, should not have that right. It's very much a taxation issue, rather than a conceptual freedom issue.

But what do I know? I'm just an unfrozen caveman... and now I'm a lawyer.

Hear, hear. I don't want to interfere with religion any more than I want it interfering with me. I believe in the right of free association and religion--and churches, by virtue of both, should be allowed to marry or to deny marriage (of a religious nature) to anyone, from homosexual couples to heterosexual couples that it doesn't find compatible. The individuals can associate with another church if it is that important to them.

The government, however, has no such leisure to pick and choose. By its own dictate it must be fair and non-discriminatory. I don't see why legal marriage cannot and should not be allowed to any consenting adults that want it (and all the benefits and drawbacks that come with it). Be they straight, gay, or I'd even say polygymous.

Whoa there Cowboy. Polygymy? I don't even know how to spell that word.

Hey, it's not my style, but who am I to deny the option to others so long as all parties involved are consenting?

By the way, I take the same approach to a number of other issues, like drugs, gambling, and prostitution. I'm not going to use a prostitute, but if two consenting adults agreeably exchange money for sex, who cares?

You're not going to use a prostitute? But they're already paid for.

I have something of a mantra: a victimless crime is not a crime at all.