The Lower Quote, As If You Didn't Know, Is By Richard Dawkins, Son.

Thursday, January 24, 2008

Podcast 6 - Marriages, Civil Unions & Heath

Hey y'all, here's the new podcast covering (in a meandering, rather pointless way) marriages, civil unions and my unwritten prediction that Heath Leger's death would provoke the condemnations of fucktard religious folks. Enjoy and as always, I'd love to hear your thoughts.

3 Barbaric Yawps:

At 24/1/08 6:25 pm, Blogger Bruce said...

Re: Removing religion from marriage

I speak as an American, so your experience may vary. Basically, religion and marriage are already separate. Marriage is a civil contract and you don't need religious involvement in any way whatsoever to get married. And almost anybody can become certified to perform a wedding in very little time and with very few costs. Thus, everyone who gets "married" is really in a civil union, they just like to refer to it as marriage. So what we are really talking about here is semantics. Granted, these words are very important to a lot of people, but legally married people are in a civil contract.

Now I happen to agree with your sentiment that we should start referring to all of these civil marriages as civil unions and leave the actual religious ceremonies of marriage to those who need them. You would think that this would solve the problem and everyone would be happy? Gays could get a civil union just like everyone else and be equal under the law and the churches could do their own thing and continue to discriminate against gay people. Well my friend, I hate to break it to you, but you would be wrong.

You see, here in Oregon a few years back we had one of those "defense of marriage" ballot measures to vote on. Because Oregon is fairly liberal as far as US states go, the fundies had to work hard to convince the more moderate godheads to vote to defend marriage. Thus, they assured everyone that they were only trying to protect the "sanctity of marriage" and had no problem with civil unions. The measure passed by a few percentage points and now discrimination is written into our state constitution.

So, last year after the Dems won back full control of the state legislature, they passed a civil unions act. So everybody is happy now, right? Surprisingly, these same people who assured us that they have no problems with civil unions have now suddenly had a change of heart and are fighting the civil unions act in the courts. I for one am shocked I tell you. I didn't see it coming.


I'm a realist, and while I would love to divest the notion of religion from marriage, but I know that it just ain't gonna happen in the States, at least not for a long time, so I stopped trying to fight that battle a while ago. And even if we could do it, you'd still have a fight on your hands over whether to allow two men or two women to enter into a civil union. The semantics will change but the bigotry will remain.

At 25/1/08 10:51 am, Anonymous mikekoz68 said...

Not that I'm in favour of beastiality, but I find it ironic that you can't fuck your dog, cat, or pet chicken due to its inability to provide consent, yet it seems perfectly ok to kill, pluck and deep-fry said chicken...

At 25/1/08 9:50 pm, Anonymous Maakuz said...

Well, we need to eat to live, and I hear eating (not fucking) chicken is actually good for your health.

But yeah, there´s some irony in it. :)

About the marriage-thing, well, when two people are in love, regardless of their sex, it´s awesome and of course they should get to be married! AND to be recognized by society as a legally married couple, if they choose to get married.

Christians, and most of the other religious people, doom gay-marriage as strange and unnatural. That´s because their invisible friend tells them so.

Hehe, irony.


Post a Comment

<< Home