Differences of Opinions
You know... as I was doing a few EPOs...
I think I must have just...for lack of a better term...screensavered myself, cuz next thing I fucking know... 3rd EPO strip into it, it's fucking 2am. what the hell... it doesn't take me that long to do one, and it's now 2 frickin AM? jesus, i so totally dozed off! Some ninja EPO could have deleted whatever EPO strip I was working on...
Anyways, that was done, and here I am. Second wind. and Caffeinated.
Yes. Caffeinated. What I'm doing drinking caffeine when I should be getting ready to sleep (ref: getting sleepy mid-EPO drawing), I have no idea. It's like... smoking when you're lready sick or coughing. Doesn't make sense... but ya still do it anyways.
So today, a friend and I went to run errands (work related) earlier during work and one thing we discussed was the recent voter response to same-sex marriage in Texas:
A state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage championed by Republican Governor Rick Perry and social conservatives won overwhelming voter approval today as Texans decided nine proposed amendments.
With more than 472,000 votes counted, 74 percent favored the ban while 26 percent were against it.
Same-sex marriage already is prohibited under Texas law.
Those who supported Proposition 2 said a constitutional ban was needed to ensure a judge doesn't decide to allow gays to marry. Supporters and opponents the gay marriage ban battled aggressively for weeks, holding debates, dueling news conferences and sending out campaign messages through the Internet and airwaves. Opponents argued a constitutional ban was unnecessary and merely a statement of discrimination against homosexuals. They also suggested that the proposed amendment was so poorly drafted it could endanger common-law or traditional male-female marriages, depending on how a judge interpreted it.
Now, I've heard some of those strongly for, and those strongly against it... I thought I'd be few in my line of thinking, but actually, I'm not. That thinking is, hey, if you're gay or lesbian, and you up and wanna be in a same-sex relationship, that's fine. Your life, your decision. Just call it a life partnership. But to me, it just doesn't have the full sounding backing to be called a 'marriage'. I know it's stupid, one way of putting it, versus a word, but hey, sometimes opinions sound stupid, but they're just that. opinions. I'm all for still having equal rights and benefits. But just not all in for calling it a specific term. But again... it's in a democratic way. People voted. I've got gay friends. Some have their life partners. Best of life to them and their happiness. But to me, i still don't call it marriage.
I mean, to have to state "SAME-SEX" before the word 'marriage', read: Same-Sex Marriage, why? Why do you have to make it stand out? Why do you have to ... make it unique? By having to call it "same-sex marriage" as opposed to just... "marriage", you already acknowledge a difference. What then, if I have a sister, or if a female friend had a brother... and though not in an incestuous relationship, wanted to be themselves considered "married" just for the benefits that the word "marriage" entails?
You then reduce the word "marriage" not to the sanctity and tradition that it has through ages been defined to, but have redefined and reduced it solely as a "legal binding to support benefits". Soon, you open this to potential discussion on what a majority of society has deemed a no-no. If enough people with pets wanted to say they were married to their pets, how would society address that? Well, aside from the "WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU ON?" that you may be thinking, reading this far, as to why I even bring it up... realize that 10...maybe 20 or so years ago, the idea of "same-sex marriage" would raise the "WHAT THE FUCK?" question. Now? Exactly. Asking for a sibling marriage or a pet-marriage would raise the same question.
I say, get the law to be redefined in such a way that what institutions already laid forth aren't argued against (don't call it marriage. That seems to rile a shitload of people off), and yet establish a parallel system that reconizes a same-sex union, without using the word "marriage", and establish equal benefits. A "same-sex partnership", or "same-sex union". Fuck it. Don't even add "same-sex". Doing so already starts you off different.
But that's just my opinion.
I think I must have just...for lack of a better term...screensavered myself, cuz next thing I fucking know... 3rd EPO strip into it, it's fucking 2am. what the hell... it doesn't take me that long to do one, and it's now 2 frickin AM? jesus, i so totally dozed off! Some ninja EPO could have deleted whatever EPO strip I was working on...
Anyways, that was done, and here I am. Second wind. and Caffeinated.
Yes. Caffeinated. What I'm doing drinking caffeine when I should be getting ready to sleep (ref: getting sleepy mid-EPO drawing), I have no idea. It's like... smoking when you're lready sick or coughing. Doesn't make sense... but ya still do it anyways.
So today, a friend and I went to run errands (work related) earlier during work and one thing we discussed was the recent voter response to same-sex marriage in Texas:
A state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage championed by Republican Governor Rick Perry and social conservatives won overwhelming voter approval today as Texans decided nine proposed amendments.
With more than 472,000 votes counted, 74 percent favored the ban while 26 percent were against it.
Same-sex marriage already is prohibited under Texas law.
Those who supported Proposition 2 said a constitutional ban was needed to ensure a judge doesn't decide to allow gays to marry. Supporters and opponents the gay marriage ban battled aggressively for weeks, holding debates, dueling news conferences and sending out campaign messages through the Internet and airwaves. Opponents argued a constitutional ban was unnecessary and merely a statement of discrimination against homosexuals. They also suggested that the proposed amendment was so poorly drafted it could endanger common-law or traditional male-female marriages, depending on how a judge interpreted it.
Now, I've heard some of those strongly for, and those strongly against it... I thought I'd be few in my line of thinking, but actually, I'm not. That thinking is, hey, if you're gay or lesbian, and you up and wanna be in a same-sex relationship, that's fine. Your life, your decision. Just call it a life partnership. But to me, it just doesn't have the full sounding backing to be called a 'marriage'. I know it's stupid, one way of putting it, versus a word, but hey, sometimes opinions sound stupid, but they're just that. opinions. I'm all for still having equal rights and benefits. But just not all in for calling it a specific term. But again... it's in a democratic way. People voted. I've got gay friends. Some have their life partners. Best of life to them and their happiness. But to me, i still don't call it marriage.
I mean, to have to state "SAME-SEX" before the word 'marriage', read: Same-Sex Marriage, why? Why do you have to make it stand out? Why do you have to ... make it unique? By having to call it "same-sex marriage" as opposed to just... "marriage", you already acknowledge a difference. What then, if I have a sister, or if a female friend had a brother... and though not in an incestuous relationship, wanted to be themselves considered "married" just for the benefits that the word "marriage" entails?
You then reduce the word "marriage" not to the sanctity and tradition that it has through ages been defined to, but have redefined and reduced it solely as a "legal binding to support benefits". Soon, you open this to potential discussion on what a majority of society has deemed a no-no. If enough people with pets wanted to say they were married to their pets, how would society address that? Well, aside from the "WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU ON?" that you may be thinking, reading this far, as to why I even bring it up... realize that 10...maybe 20 or so years ago, the idea of "same-sex marriage" would raise the "WHAT THE FUCK?" question. Now? Exactly. Asking for a sibling marriage or a pet-marriage would raise the same question.
I say, get the law to be redefined in such a way that what institutions already laid forth aren't argued against (don't call it marriage. That seems to rile a shitload of people off), and yet establish a parallel system that reconizes a same-sex union, without using the word "marriage", and establish equal benefits. A "same-sex partnership", or "same-sex union". Fuck it. Don't even add "same-sex". Doing so already starts you off different.
But that's just my opinion.
posted by Bum at 00:07
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home