That’s so F’ing GAY

I’ve been watching a lot of the HBO show Big Love lately. It’s a show about a family of Mormon polygamists and how they juggle the multiple wives and hordes of children that result from the lifestyle in a world that looks down on their beliefs. The show really has me thinking: Why is Polygamy illegal? Why does the Government care whether a guy wants to marry multiple women in a consensual relationship where he takes care of all his families? The Government certainly doesn’t care if a guy wants to be a cheating scumbag and screw around behind his wife’s back, unless of course there is a child support issue, so why do they care if a guy has multiple families and WANTS to acknowledge and care for the children that result? Why is the Government in the business of marriage anyway? If a guy wants to marry 10 women, a woman wants to marry six guys, two men and two women want to be one big family, two men OR two women want to marry each other, what business is it of the Government?

Now, I understand that there is no actual mention of “Seperation of Church and State” in the US Constitution. The amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” Which oddly enough is the polar opposite of what those trying to ban mention of God in commencement speeches and such think. Those people who ban mention of God are actually violating the second part about prohibiting the free excercise thereof, however, that is the subject of a future post I think. Anyway, people want to separate Church and State whenever possible, then why are they letting Government intrude into what is regularly referred to as “Holy Matrimony”? Shouldn’t a Church be free to decide who to marry? If your church wont’ marry you for being a polygamist, or (the actual point of my whole rant) GAY!, why not just choose a church that will? Why doesnt the Government have to be involved at all? Well, I have a theory:

Presently, the tax code allows for a single man, single woman union. Should we start to redefine marriage, all the sudden, people will be able to claim all kinds of new exemptions, and the Government might lose out on some tax money!!!!!!! OH NOES!!!! People might be able to find new ways to skirt the income, capital gains, or estate taxes, and we can’t have that!!!! after all, the way the current system works, it’s only people’s civil rights that get violated, so no big loss right? Instead, let’s resort to typical Government obfuscation techniques of riling up people’s base religious beliefs, prejudices, and bigotry to divide the nation over an issue that is fundamentally about personal freedom. After all Mr. Religious, how does it really hurt you if two guys want to pound each other officially or on the “down low”? Either way, you’re going to dismiss them as people regardless of their accomplishments, feelings, influence, etc, so why not just let them be free?

By deflecting the issue of personal freedom and trying to make it about “decency,” religion, bigotry, or “abuse of the system,” the Government can continue to avoid being held responsible yet again.

Quit being sheep, people; you are being led by wolves.


5 Responses to “That’s so F’ing GAY”

  1. Some Chick Says:

    >trying to make it about “decency”, religion, bigotry, or “abuse of the system”, the Government

    Commas go inside the quotation marks. I.e., “…trying to make it about ‘decency,’ religion, bigotry, or ‘abuse of the system,’ the Government…”

    Y’know, just fyi.

    ps: ‘course the gov’t wants yer dough. Also, regardless of any financial conspiracy theories, people fear change. Just as it’s easy to train a dog to do something already in his or her nature through positive and negative reinforcement for your personal gain or entertainment (rolling over, barking at strangers), it’s easy to take peoples’ natural reluctance to change and steer it in a direction that benefits you (the government). Happens all the time with consumer marketing. So, if people want to Not Make An Effort To Change and to Maintain The Status Quo all on their own, easy enough to give them reasons to dig in and voraciously defend their position, all the while reaping the financial benefits of their lack of willingness to question and/or change.

    I’m not a big fan of polyamory / polyandry / polygamy for reasons of my own, but I don’t see anything inherently wrong with it. I think loving as many people of you want of whatever gender, drugs (check out Portugal’s stance on that), and prostitution are things about which that the government should back the eff out. Provide a nice infrastructure with medical care and then leave me alone. You work for ME, I don’t bow to you.

  2. Dammit, you know I’ll have to edit it now, I’m such a grammar nazi 😛

    I understand and agree with your views on polygamy etc, because I feel the same way. I think homosexuality is gross, and these people may very well be damned to eternal hell like the religious nuts say, but they are people, they have rights, and standing up for freedoms are more important than my personal feelings about it. It’s sort of along the lines of I don’t agree with what you say, but I’ll fight for your right to say it.

    As for a government providing medical care, the main reason I’m against that is that it opens the door for draconian “public good” laws. Once the citizen’s medical care is the responsibility of the public, it becomes in the public’s best interest to minimize the cost of care needed. Then we end up with laws against anything bad for you, whether is proven or not, and then we get laws outlawing smoking, drinking, fatty foods, sugars, etc. I think smoking is disgusting, but you own your body and if you want to destroy it, go ahead. I don’t think there need to be laws banning smoking in certain places either, but we should have the courtesy to put out your cigarette or move if you are bothering someone nearby – this may be my next topic now that I think about it.

    • Some Chick Says:

      I think you’re coming at it from a rather entrenched American viewpoint. Just because that’s How Things Have Been does not mean it’s How They Will Always Be. You appear to be assuming that the government WILL take the most controlling, least efficient, and totally buggered-up stance on this. I understand why you would say that, and I tend to agree in the short term, but there are many countries who are not that f***-ed up when it comes to health care vs. civil liberties and personal responsibility. Many Scandinavian countries, for ex., are extremely progressive AND efficient. Hell, if not for the weather, I’d move to Sweden tomorrow!

      • Well, the Government hasn’t really set me on fire with excitement about how efficiently they’ve run in the past, I think post #2 or 3 mentions that 🙂

  3. Some Chick Says:

    Bah. Run-on sentence in there. Apologies.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: